| | | china mobile, 5G polluter....
"...We should err on the side of caution and stop the global roll out of 5G (fifth generation) telecoms
networks...urges an expert in an opinion piece published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
... it has become the subject of fierce controversy, fuelled by four key areas of scientific uncertainty and concern.
The lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; and a growing but far from comprehensive body of laboratory research indicating the biologically disruptive potential of RF-EMFs An almost total lack (as yet) of high quality epidemiological studies of the impact on human health from 5G EMF exposureMounting epidemiological evidence of such effects from previous generations of RF-EMF exposure at lower levelsPersistent allegations that some national telecomms regulatory authorities haven’t based their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, amid potential conflicts of interest 5G uses much higher frequency (3 to 300GHz) radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new—and relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety—supportive technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, points out Professor Frank.
Its inherent fragility means that transmission boosting ‘cell’ antennae are generally required every 100–300
m—which is far more spatially dense than the transmission masts required for older 2G, 3G and 4G
technology, using lower frequency waves, he says. A dense transmission network is also required to
achieve the ‘everywhere/anytime’ connectivity promised by 5G developers.
...the clamour from “a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally...calling on
governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold
off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety,” he writes.
Permitted maximum safety limits for RF-EMF exposure vary considerably around the world, he points out.
What’s more, ‘5G systems’ is not a consistently defined term, comprising quite different specific technologies
and components.
“It is highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects
—making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible,” he explains.
Recent reviews of lab data on RF-EMFs indicate that exposures can produce wide-ranging effects, including
reproductive, fetal, oncological, neuropsychiatric, skin, eye and immunological. But there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is implicated in the spread of COVID-19, as some conspiracy theorists
have suggested, he emphasises.
...for the current 5G roll-out, there’s a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’ because of
significant doubts about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure, which should be
reason enough “to call a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its
suspected adverse health effects,” he says.
There is no compelling public health or safety rationale for the rapid deployment of 5G, he insists. The main
gains being promised are either economic, and then possibly for some more than for others, or related to
increased consumer convenience, he suggests.
“Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those
putative gains need to wait,” he concludes..."
bmj.com
more ready-fire-aim,
it's killin us,
managerial harm.
geezzzzz...............................................................................
|
|
