European Parliament Briefing: Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health, February 2020
Download here
Overview by Claire Edwards
Overview
I here provide an overview of the most shocking information contained in this EU Parliament Briefing, with comments in italics. Below the overview I provide the direct quotations (with emphasis added by me) from the Briefing so that readers can check for themselves that this overview does not deviate from the truth.
Readers may wish to ask representatives of the EU and governments and their various health “authorities”, as well as those participating in the 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP), why they are ignoring this Briefing and why they are suppressing those drawing attention to this information, which is already in the public domain, by threatening them with attack from law enforcement, the security services and the court system (para. 36).
Astute readers may simply conclude from this prima facie evidence that the above-named “authorities” are engaged in a 5G crime against humanity and seek to hold them liable (Notice of Liability here).
Risk of 5G
No one knows what 5G actually is and whether it has impacts on human health and the environment. No research has addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. The European Commission has conducted no studies on the potential health risks of 5G. A 2019 EU study said that it is not currently possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world. [That means that you are currently enrolled without your knowledge in the biggest biological experiment in known human history.]
5G antennas will result in constant exposure of the population to millimetre wave radiation. It will require about 800 5G base stations per square kilometre as compared to 3G and 4G antenna ranges of 2-15 kilometres or more. The mobile telecommunications industry has not convinced governments of 5G's economic and social benefits.
Council of Europe Resolution 1815 (2011) states that some non-ionizing frequencies appear to have potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on humans, other animals and plants, even below the official threshold values. It identifies young people and children as particularly vulnerable groups and states that there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected. [Its recommendations were ignored.]
Doctors and researchers in medical sciences argue that there are negative impacts from EMF exposure and that these will increase with the implementation of 5G because 5G employs a very high level of pulsations, which are more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than non-pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMF).
Studies highlight multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems. Millimetre waves have effects on the skin, eyes, and immune system, and bacterial antibiotic resistance. Of 100 studies, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems. Wifi routers operate at 2.4 GHz, which is the frequency used to rapidly induce diabetes in laboratory rats.
The [30-year] National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks … the intensity of exposure in the brains of rats was similar to potential human mobile phone exposures.
The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) rates the risk of 5G to ecosystems and species as high and suggests that 5G could have biological consequences because of a “lack of evidence” [we have the evidence of over 31K studies – see EMF Portal] to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology.
Exposure limits
The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals are now 20 years old, and do not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.
The [World Health Organization] WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011. The IARC has recently prioritized EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024).
Independent scientists and doctors demand new exposure limits that should be based on the biological effects of EMF radiation and not just on heating, as is the case of current guidelines. [They are ignored.]
The reason for the lack of agreement on the potential negative effects of EMF exposure and 5G is because scientists rarely possess complementary backgrounds in both physics or engineering and medicine. [Also because the telecommunications industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet and “war games” the science.]
International law requires informed consent so 5G implementation is illegal
Health, safety and environmental issues need wider public awareness and consent, especially given the possible negative health impacts due to the inescapability of constant exposure of citizens in a 5G environment.
The European Environment Agency found that EU Member States were not doing enough to inform citizens about the risks of EMF exposure, especially to children.
The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP) does not refer to the biological impacts of 5G radiation and the European Electronic Communication Code (EECC) forces EU Member States to authorize the use of the new 5G frequency bands.
SCHEER replaced the former Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) as many members of SCENIHR were accused of conflicts of interests because they had professional relationships with or received funding from various telecom companies.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognize that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children's and young people's exposure.
Quoted excerpts from the Briefing (emphasis added)
Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce.
The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.
The connectivity objective has been regulated by the adoption of the European Electronic Communication Code (EECC) at the end of 2018, under which EU Member States have to authorise the use of the new 5G frequency bands at 700 MHz, 3.5 GHz and 26 GHz, and reorganise them by the end of 2020 in line with the EECC.
Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it.
Due to the limited coverage, to implement 5G, cell antennas will have to be installed very close to one another, which will result in constant exposure of the population to millimetre wave radiation.
A cell radius of 20 metres would imply about 800 base stations per square kilometre … This contrasts with 3G and 4G technologies, which use large or 'macro' cells, offering ranges of 2-15 kilometres or more …
The [European Environment Agency] requests that EU Member States do more to inform citizens about the risks of EMF exposure, especially to children.
… many members of SCENIHR could have a conflict of interests, as they had professional relationships with or received funding from various telecom companies.
[T]he Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), replacing the former Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), indicated a preliminary estimate of the importance of 5G as high, in a statement in December 2018. Furthermore, it evaluates the scale, urgency and interactions (with ecosystems and species) of possible hazard as high. It suggested that there could be biological consequences from a 5G environment, due to the fact that there is a lack of 'evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology'.
Council of Europe Resolution 1815 (2011) points to the potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices, which are the subject of ongoing research and public debate. It also states that some non-ionising frequencies appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on humans, other animals and plants, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values. The resolution identifies young people and children as particularly vulnerable groups and suggests that there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.
The resolution recommends [Note: the recommendations were ignored]:
· taking all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to EMF (especially from mobile phones) and particularly to protect children and young people who seem to be most at risk of developing head tumours;
· reconsidering the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations;
· distributing information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
· giving preference to wired internet connections (for children in general and particularly in schools), and strictly regulating the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;
· increasing public funding of independent research to evaluate health risks.
The [World Health Organization] WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011. The IARC has recently prioritised EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024).
A section of the scientific community – mainly doctors and researchers in medical sciences – argues that there are negative impacts from EMF exposure and that these will increase with the implementation of 5G.
In this regard, some scientists consider it necessary to establish new exposure limits that take account of the new characteristics of exposure. Such limits should be based on the biological effects of EMF radiation, rather than on the energy-based specific absorption rate.
[S]ome of the above-mentioned scientists point out that, in the particular case of 5G, the issue is not the potency, but the pulse, the frequency to which the whole population will be exposed due to the dense network of antennas and the estimated billions of simultaneous connections. As 5G employs a very high level of pulsations … Studies show that pulsed EMF are in most cases more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than non-pulsed EMF. Every single wireless communication device communicates at least partially via pulsations, and the smarter the device, the more pulsations. … characteristics of the 5G signal such as pulsing seem to increase the biologic and health impacts of exposure, including DNA damage, which is considered to be a cause of cancer. DNA damage is also linked to reproductive decline and neurodegenerative diseases.
A 2018 review of more recently published peer-reviewed articles on the biological and health effects of radio frequency EMF, including 5G … point to the existence of multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems, and to the possibility of oncological and non-oncological (mainly reproductive, metabolic, neurological, microbiological) effects. … Concretely in the case of millimetre waves, it analyses the results of studies which find effects on the skin, eyes, and immune system, and bacterial antibiotic resistance.
A 2016 review of scientific articles … among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies … 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'.
A method of creating diabetes (which can lead to kidney deficiency in the long term) in laboratory rats is to expose them, even briefly, to 2.4 Ghz. [Note: this is the frequency of current WiFi routers.]
[T]he National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks … the intensity of exposure in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to potential human mobile phone exposures.
[T]he mobile telecommunications industry needs to convince governments of 5G's economic and social benefits …
The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP), a joint initiative between the European Commission and European information and telecommunications (ICT) industry (ICT manufacturers, telecommunications operators, service providers, SMEs and research institutions) … does not refer to the biological impacts of 5G radiation.
Other concerns relate to … health, safety and environmental issues. These need wider public awareness and consent, however this is doubly salient regarding the possible negative health impacts due to the inescapability of constant exposure of citizens in a 5G environment. … The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognise that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children's and young people's exposure.
A certain divergence exists among scientists on the potential negative effects of EMF exposure and 5G. Experts rarely possess complementary backgrounds in both physics or engineering and medicine …
According to the 2019 study '5G deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia' prepared for the European Parliament … the main problem [is] that it is not currently possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.
The European Commission has not yet conducted studies on the potential health risks of the 5G technology.
I here provide an overview of the most shocking information contained in this EU Parliament Briefing, with comments in italics. Below the overview I provide the direct quotations (with emphasis added by me) from the Briefing so that readers can check for themselves that this overview does not deviate from the truth.
Readers may wish to ask representatives of the EU and governments and their various health “authorities”, as well as those participating in the 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP), why they are ignoring this Briefing and why they are suppressing those drawing attention to this information, which is already in the public domain, by threatening them with attack from law enforcement, the security services and the court system (para. 36).
Astute readers may simply conclude from this prima facie evidence that the above-named “authorities” are engaged in a 5G crime against humanity and seek to hold them liable (Notice of Liability here).
Risk of 5G
No one knows what 5G actually is and whether it has impacts on human health and the environment. No research has addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce. The European Commission has conducted no studies on the potential health risks of 5G. A 2019 EU study said that it is not currently possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world. [That means that you are currently enrolled without your knowledge in the biggest biological experiment in known human history.]
5G antennas will result in constant exposure of the population to millimetre wave radiation. It will require about 800 5G base stations per square kilometre as compared to 3G and 4G antenna ranges of 2-15 kilometres or more. The mobile telecommunications industry has not convinced governments of 5G's economic and social benefits.
Council of Europe Resolution 1815 (2011) states that some non-ionizing frequencies appear to have potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on humans, other animals and plants, even below the official threshold values. It identifies young people and children as particularly vulnerable groups and states that there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected. [Its recommendations were ignored.]
Doctors and researchers in medical sciences argue that there are negative impacts from EMF exposure and that these will increase with the implementation of 5G because 5G employs a very high level of pulsations, which are more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than non-pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMF).
Studies highlight multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems. Millimetre waves have effects on the skin, eyes, and immune system, and bacterial antibiotic resistance. Of 100 studies, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems. Wifi routers operate at 2.4 GHz, which is the frequency used to rapidly induce diabetes in laboratory rats.
The [30-year] National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks … the intensity of exposure in the brains of rats was similar to potential human mobile phone exposures.
The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) rates the risk of 5G to ecosystems and species as high and suggests that 5G could have biological consequences because of a “lack of evidence” [we have the evidence of over 31K studies – see EMF Portal] to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology.
Exposure limits
The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals are now 20 years old, and do not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.
The [World Health Organization] WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011. The IARC has recently prioritized EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024).
Independent scientists and doctors demand new exposure limits that should be based on the biological effects of EMF radiation and not just on heating, as is the case of current guidelines. [They are ignored.]
The reason for the lack of agreement on the potential negative effects of EMF exposure and 5G is because scientists rarely possess complementary backgrounds in both physics or engineering and medicine. [Also because the telecommunications industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet and “war games” the science.]
International law requires informed consent so 5G implementation is illegal
Health, safety and environmental issues need wider public awareness and consent, especially given the possible negative health impacts due to the inescapability of constant exposure of citizens in a 5G environment.
The European Environment Agency found that EU Member States were not doing enough to inform citizens about the risks of EMF exposure, especially to children.
The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP) does not refer to the biological impacts of 5G radiation and the European Electronic Communication Code (EECC) forces EU Member States to authorize the use of the new 5G frequency bands.
SCHEER replaced the former Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) as many members of SCENIHR were accused of conflicts of interests because they had professional relationships with or received funding from various telecom companies.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognize that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children's and young people's exposure.
Quoted excerpts from the Briefing (emphasis added)
Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce.
The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.
The connectivity objective has been regulated by the adoption of the European Electronic Communication Code (EECC) at the end of 2018, under which EU Member States have to authorise the use of the new 5G frequency bands at 700 MHz, 3.5 GHz and 26 GHz, and reorganise them by the end of 2020 in line with the EECC.
Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it.
Due to the limited coverage, to implement 5G, cell antennas will have to be installed very close to one another, which will result in constant exposure of the population to millimetre wave radiation.
A cell radius of 20 metres would imply about 800 base stations per square kilometre … This contrasts with 3G and 4G technologies, which use large or 'macro' cells, offering ranges of 2-15 kilometres or more …
The [European Environment Agency] requests that EU Member States do more to inform citizens about the risks of EMF exposure, especially to children.
… many members of SCENIHR could have a conflict of interests, as they had professional relationships with or received funding from various telecom companies.
[T]he Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), replacing the former Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), indicated a preliminary estimate of the importance of 5G as high, in a statement in December 2018. Furthermore, it evaluates the scale, urgency and interactions (with ecosystems and species) of possible hazard as high. It suggested that there could be biological consequences from a 5G environment, due to the fact that there is a lack of 'evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology'.
Council of Europe Resolution 1815 (2011) points to the potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices, which are the subject of ongoing research and public debate. It also states that some non-ionising frequencies appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on humans, other animals and plants, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values. The resolution identifies young people and children as particularly vulnerable groups and suggests that there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.
The resolution recommends [Note: the recommendations were ignored]:
· taking all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to EMF (especially from mobile phones) and particularly to protect children and young people who seem to be most at risk of developing head tumours;
· reconsidering the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations;
· distributing information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
· giving preference to wired internet connections (for children in general and particularly in schools), and strictly regulating the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;
· increasing public funding of independent research to evaluate health risks.
The [World Health Organization] WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011. The IARC has recently prioritised EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024).
A section of the scientific community – mainly doctors and researchers in medical sciences – argues that there are negative impacts from EMF exposure and that these will increase with the implementation of 5G.
In this regard, some scientists consider it necessary to establish new exposure limits that take account of the new characteristics of exposure. Such limits should be based on the biological effects of EMF radiation, rather than on the energy-based specific absorption rate.
[S]ome of the above-mentioned scientists point out that, in the particular case of 5G, the issue is not the potency, but the pulse, the frequency to which the whole population will be exposed due to the dense network of antennas and the estimated billions of simultaneous connections. As 5G employs a very high level of pulsations … Studies show that pulsed EMF are in most cases more biologically active and therefore more dangerous than non-pulsed EMF. Every single wireless communication device communicates at least partially via pulsations, and the smarter the device, the more pulsations. … characteristics of the 5G signal such as pulsing seem to increase the biologic and health impacts of exposure, including DNA damage, which is considered to be a cause of cancer. DNA damage is also linked to reproductive decline and neurodegenerative diseases.
A 2018 review of more recently published peer-reviewed articles on the biological and health effects of radio frequency EMF, including 5G … point to the existence of multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems, and to the possibility of oncological and non-oncological (mainly reproductive, metabolic, neurological, microbiological) effects. … Concretely in the case of millimetre waves, it analyses the results of studies which find effects on the skin, eyes, and immune system, and bacterial antibiotic resistance.
A 2016 review of scientific articles … among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies … 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'.
A method of creating diabetes (which can lead to kidney deficiency in the long term) in laboratory rats is to expose them, even briefly, to 2.4 Ghz. [Note: this is the frequency of current WiFi routers.]
[T]he National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks … the intensity of exposure in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to potential human mobile phone exposures.
[T]he mobile telecommunications industry needs to convince governments of 5G's economic and social benefits …
The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership (5G PPP), a joint initiative between the European Commission and European information and telecommunications (ICT) industry (ICT manufacturers, telecommunications operators, service providers, SMEs and research institutions) … does not refer to the biological impacts of 5G radiation.
Other concerns relate to … health, safety and environmental issues. These need wider public awareness and consent, however this is doubly salient regarding the possible negative health impacts due to the inescapability of constant exposure of citizens in a 5G environment. … The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognise that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children's and young people's exposure.
A certain divergence exists among scientists on the potential negative effects of EMF exposure and 5G. Experts rarely possess complementary backgrounds in both physics or engineering and medicine …
According to the 2019 study '5G deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia' prepared for the European Parliament … the main problem [is] that it is not currently possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.
The European Commission has not yet conducted studies on the potential health risks of the 5G technology.