1) The influence of industry pervades the agencies that have influenced exposure policies, public awareness, and research. This report outlines how this has happened and continues to happen, and supports the desperate need/demand for a truly independent commission. A long read but well worth the time.
Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative
“Overall, it is clear that these scientists are well-qualified to advocate for precaution regarding 5G because their opinions are based on discoveries that have arisen from their own rigorous research. As true experts they have earned the right to be heeded in their weighty statements of concern regarding health risks from RF-EMFs. It is inexplicable therefore, why two of these authorities, Hardell and Miller, were demoted by de Vocht et al. (5) as “white hats” and classified under “activism.” Such skewed labeling introduces doubt regarding the motives of sound scientists and detracts from their credentials as experts in this field. This unscrupulous “discredit the scientist” strategy has been used previously by the tobacco industry so as to demote the research of scientists presenting results showing health risks from smoking (22)….
Such conflicts of interest make it unclear whose interests are being represented when a member of one these groups speaks into the 5G narrative. For example, when a WHO webpage on potential health risks from 5G informs that Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated (37), it is uncertain who is really speaking: ARPANSA, ICNIRP, ACMA,2 or the telecommunications industry.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1339513/full
2) The timing is convenient as this article relates to the prior one. Because current exposure guidelines are based on “false assumptions”, developed by and for the military and corporations 30-40 years ago, billions of people are being exposed to dangerous levels of RF radiation. A new commission is needed comprised of independent experts able and willing to establish new limits based on current scientific evidence.
(click on photo to enlarge)
Experts: Current Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits Based on Inadequate Science — Does 5G Introduce Heightened Health Concerns?
“But with overwhelming dependence on our smartphones and various devices powered by standards such as Bluetooth—and all of this exposure to EMFs, how safe are we assuming what appears to be the shoddy evidence backing the safe exposure limits today? The present authors argue herein that those limits were established long ago, based on limited scientific rigor involving both the FCC and ICNIRP. If a group of experts in the field are correct, humanity faces the specter of myriad and potentially severe risks including the prospects of cancer and even sperm damage….
The established limits “were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg” the authors elucidate in the journal l Environmental Health….
The expert authors point the reader to what can only be considered a scandalous fact. By 2020, FCC and ICNIRP “experts” reaffirmed the same limits established in the 1990s, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.”
Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safer Tech
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.” George Washington
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. PLEASE Practice Safe Tech.