The following thread is from a report downloadable at
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10604943924787/Prof-Tom-Butler-Submission-on-5G-RFR-Final-27-05-2020-1.pdf

What does science have to say about the health risks of 5G Technology?

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as a possible human carcinogen.
It is, therefore, incredible that not a single, peer-reviewed scientific study has been carried out on the health risks associated with 5G technologies that emit LF,(700MHz), HF, (3.4-3.8 GHz, centimetre (CM)) or EHF millimeter (MM) (26 GHz and above) RFR.
The overwhelming majority of published peer-reviewed scientific studies in biomedical research databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and those listed in Google Scholar, indicate significant health risks with RFR of the type used in 5G technologies, ...
...both near field in the home and far-field in antennae, whether on access points or masts. This is the view of the majority of scientists across biomedical and related fields: However, the minority view is led by a group of 13 influential scientists from (ICNIRP)....
the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection . Significantly, commission members have strong links with the telecommunications industry and hold key roles in the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), ....
....and the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging & Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Thus, the minority view dominates through political influence, not the preponderance of scientific evidence.
The majority view is represented in the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed empirical studies on microwave non-ionizing RFR focusing on the biomedical effects of 2-4G and WiFi technologies (see Di Ciaula, 2018; Miligi, 2019; Russell, 2018; and Kostof et al. 2020, for examples)
There are also several reviews and general studies focusing on extremely high frequencies up to 100GHz that may be used in 5G (Neufeld and Kuster, 2018; Simkó and Mattsson, 2019).
The overwhelming majority of studies conclude that there is a high risk of adverse biological effects on humans at low, high and extremely high frequencies. Recent research funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) ....
....finds that ICNIRP guidelines focus on short-term risks only, not long‐term exposures to weak RFR: this despite “a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long‐term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health” ...
....with significant “public health issues” (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020. p. 1). Furthermore, research also finds biological effects at high frequencies may add to and compound those predicted at lower frequencies (Kostof et al., 2020).
End Thread
Buy Bacofoil shares Urgent
You can follow @DangerousGlobe.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: