Understanding the “safe” guidelines of cell phone radiation
by Liam Cook
The WHO has never been under more scrutiny from the public than they have today. From their handling of a hitherto unknown Human coronavirus, to the nefarious past of “Dr” Tedros their Director General, to the reported deadly results of their “humanitarian” endeavors terrorizing third world countries with enforced vaccinations, never before have so many different organisations been pointed in the direction of this so called World “Health” Organization.
Currently there are many battles for freedom popping up across the world, protests against “lockdowns”, protests against “mandatory” vaccinations and protests against the world wide roll out of the next generation of microwave radio frequency technology – 5G.
All of these things – the lockdowns and removal of civil rights, the removal of the individual’s choice over their own body through enforced vaccinations, the implementation of new levels of dangerous radio frequency radiation coming to a school near you – have one thing in common: they have all been made possible, courtesy of the WHO.
Now, many will know the part WHO has played in advising governments to implement whole-state “quarantines” and the advice they give as to the “importance of vaccinations and removing people’s choice over whether they want it or not”.
However, many will not know the role the World “Health” Organization plays in the roll out of the latest and greatest in internet technology.
As it happens the WHO has a committee which establishes “guidelines” for “safe” levels of “Non-Ionising Radiation”: The International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
Over the last 2 decades thousands of international scientists, medical doctors and experts have submitted investigations, experiments and paper upon papers warning them of the potential short and long term dangers connected with non-Ionizing radiation and specifically radio frequency radiation (RFR – all cell phones, bluetooth and Wifi use radio frequencies). The International Agency for Research on Cancer listed radio frequency radiation as a possible human carcinogen in 2011, requiring further studies and investigation to determine to what degree RFR causes harm and more specifically cancer. There were some links identified at the time but not enough to label it as a class 1 human carcinogen.
So surely someone like the WHO, so concerned for the health of the world would jump on these reports, insist on safer methods and stricter measures especially for those most vulnerable, our children.
Surely, considering they put health before wealth, especially in the handling of coronaviruses, they wouldn’t allow cell phone towers right next to schools if radio frequency is listed as a possible human carcinogen?
Surely they would advise telecom companies and governments to do thorough testing on the long term effects of 24/7 radiation from large and small transmitters that emit constant and continual RFR radiation to all of the people of the world?
Nope. Quite the opposite.
Let’s get a couple of things straight. Without needing to know physics, biology or having any medical degrees, there are some simple truths that anyone can understand and anyone with a modicum of common sense would think twice about implementing such a potentially dangerous technology with no safety testing.
There have been way too many highly qualified experts who have spoken of the dangers for them to be brushed aside as just some “lone nutty scientist with his tin foil hat”.
All you need to know are the basics.
Up until 3 weeks ago, I knew nothing of RFR, 5G or anything else. I knew and had heard on the grapevine that cell phones can cause cancer but I didn’t take this seriously. Thanks to the current lockdown and the systematic disintegration of life as we knew it, I started hearing more and more about 5G, 5G, 5G. Stop 5G. Halt 5G. What’s this all about? I asked myself. So I did some digging and what I found I did not like.
The first thing I found was an article written in 2017 International Journal of Oncology, in the National Institute of Health’s library:
“World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review)”
The first paragraph was very enlightening:
“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.”
The whole article is an interesting read. You can easily find it on a Google search.
OK, so the first thing we know – RFR is a possible human carcinogen, there are links between RFR and cancer. And this was in 2011, so before 4G and before widespread use of WiFi. So already out of date and if only 1-3G had significant enough links to cancer what happens when you add 4G, Wifi and then 5G to the mix?
In 2016 a paper also in the National Institute of Health’s Library:
“Effect of Ultra High Frequency Mobile Phone Radiation on Human Health”
The results of this study and International Commission of Non Ionization Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reports showed the people who spend more than 50 minutes a day using a cell phone could have early dementia or other thermal damage due to the burning of glucose in the brain.”
Many people are not aware of the harmful effects of radiofrequency waves (RF) and their role in cancer and other serious risks. Scientific evidence suggests that cancer is not only linked to mobile phone radiation and that other factors also may be involved in its development. Most mobile operators use from radiofrequency waves in the range up 300 MHz to 3 GHz that can be harmful for human health (1). Many scientific studies have been done on the radiobiological effects of RF waves, and most of them have reported the rare relationship between RF exposure and risks posed by mobile phones on the body in the last 15 years (2). However, they could lead to increased body temperature, especially in the head and neck, who have a low threshold dose and increases the probability of injury if there is long-term exposure to these waves. Mobile phones emit RF waves even when they are in standby mode. When using mobile phones, various factors should be considered, such as the duration, location, and method of use, in order to reduce the possible effects of exposure to radiation in the RF. Because of the risk of mutation and sexual trauma and to prevent infertility due to the effect on male sexual cells, the mobile phone should be away from the waist.”
OK that doesn’t sound good. So it’s known the mobile carriers use dangerous levels of radiation. It can cause infertility, probable injury to the neck and head….people who spend more than 50 minutes per day on their mobile could have early onset of dementia….
Wow those certainly sound like they should be doing everything they can to make these devices safer. Considering the average person spends well over an hour now on his/her smartphone, whether it is talk, texting, on games or on social media, the average smartphone user will certainly spend more than 50 mins per day on their phone.
The National Toxicity Program in the USA issued their findings after a decade long study on RFR:
“Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation”
“What did the studies find?
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
“Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.”
he study also went on to say:
“What are NTP’s future plans for studying cell phone RFR and 5G wireless technology?
“5G is the emergent technology that will eventually overtake the existing 2G, 3G, and 4G technology. In the meantime, people will continue to be exposed to RFR in the 700–2700 MHz range. As the 5G network is implemented, some of the signals used by the 5G network will use the same lower frequencies used by the older technology previously studied by NTP, but the 5G network will also use higher frequencies—up to 60,000 MHz—thereby exposing wireless users to a much broader spectrum of frequencies. The higher frequencies, known as millimeter waves, can rapidly transmit enormous amounts of data with increased network capacity compared with current technologies. Millimeter waves do not travel as far and do not penetrate the body as deeply as do the wavelengths from the lower frequencies.”
OK slightly reassuring in that they don’t think it will penetrate as deep into the body as other forms of 1-4G. But still, another RFR on top of the already increasing connection between RFR and cancer? Surely there is another way? Surely ICNIRP will issue tougher guidelines in order to protect the people it has vowed to serve.
Again…nope. The ICNIRP chose, despite the fact it was peer-reviewed, to “disagree” with NTPs findings and to dismiss it altogether on the grounds that the rats were exposed to full body RFR, which is unlikely to happen from your phone.
Well then, the point here is clear, yes your phone may not irradiate you completely 24/7 but all smart phones are sending and receiving RFR constantly so some part of the body is always exposed regardless. But in addition to those irradiation levels the infrastructure needed for 5G means that you will be exposed to full body radiation 24/7.
Due to the fact that 5G micro-millimeter waves cannot travel as far, the need for mini transmitters ever 200-400ft at street level is required. So no matter where you go, what time of day it is, you will never be far from a transmitter.
In January 2020, an article issued in the National Institute of Health, also peer-reviewed with extensive links to studies – called for the reclassification of RFR from a class 2B Human carcinogen, to a class 1 – a definite human carcinogen – in the same category as smoking and asbestos.
The fact is there are thousands of studies worldwide that have indicated various health problems caused by RFR below the ICNIRPs “guidelines”. Yet they are all systematically dismissed by the ICNIRP.
So why would the committee, who within their very title have the word “protection”, dismiss so many studies?
Why do they not recognize scientists who don’t agree with them?
Perhaps what they are there to protect is not the public but the industries that pay them to make sure they say what is needed.
In an investigative piece written this year, Louis Slesin who has been looking into the health effects of EMF (electromagnetic fields – RF is a type of EMF) when questioned on the WHO’s influence on International standards of safe RFR said:
“In 2000, WHO published a major mea culpa report on how it allowed the tobacco industry to influence its thinking. But then they repeated that with EMF. They have never given me an answer to why”, says Slesin.
Let’s see what Slesin means by this:
In 2017 an investigative team looked into the various connections of the ICNIRP and where their funding was coming from. By their own declaration, the ICNIRP should not receive funding from any field/business etc which works with Non-Ionizing Radiation. Let’s see if this is the case, of those that sat on the committee at the time this is what they found:
(the full document can be found here: http://www.iemfa.org/news/conflicts-of-interest-among-the-members-of-the-international-organization-icnirp/)
ICNIRP and Their Conflicts of interest:
- Maria Feychting, Vice-Chair of ICNIRP since 2012 – Received funds for this purpose from TeliaSonera, Ericsson AB and Telenor, which are leading companies in telecommunications. She also participated in projects funded by the Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication of Zurich. Among the five founders of this organization are Swisscom (a Swiss telecommunications company, telephony and mobile telephony, and Internetservice provider), Orange, Sunrise (a Swiss telecommunications provider based in Zurich), and 3G Mobile (liquidated in 2011).
- Rodney Croft has received financing for his travel expenses and at least one research study was financed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a USbased research organization that serves the electric and telecommunications industries
- James Lin is currently Editor-in-Chief of the Bioelectromagnetics Journal published on behalf of The Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS). The Society holds meetings in conjunction with other scientific or medical organizations, including the European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA). It is Interesting to note that the annual meeting celebrating the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA) was held from June 14-19, 2015 at the Asilomar Conference Center in California (USA), The program can be viewed at http://www.bioem2015.org/Program.pdf and
- lists the program sponsors including companies such as, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering Society (Mobile EMF Consortium) and, GSM-ATM5
- Carmela Marino: Member of the ICNIRP Commission served as President of EBEA in 2008 and has been an Associate Editor for the Journal of Bioelectromagnetics.
- Zenon Sienkiewicz: In his Declaration of Interests submitted to ICNIRP, he states“provision of scientific support and advice to government and other stakeholders”,without being specific. At the same time, in a statement of interest he submitted to the European Parliament in applying to join the Scientific Committee on Emerging Newly Identified Health Risks, he mentions his relationship with BT (one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world) from 2003 to the present day. Also since 2009, he has been a consultant to the Rapid Response Group at the Japan EMF Information Center, which is funded by “Japan Electrical Safety & EnvironmentTechnology Laboratories, where he conducts reviews and analyses of recently published scientific studies.
- Per Söderberg, states in his Declaration of Interests submitted to ICNIRP that he is an “occasional expert statements for Swedish insurance companies”.
- Eric van Rongen: states in his Declaration of Interests submitted to ICNIRP that he is “President, European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA)”.
- Soichi Watanabe: states in his Declaration of Interests submitted to ICNIRP that he teaches a workshop on RF safety for the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA), a Japanese trade organization for the electronics and IT industries, formed in 2000 by the Electronic Industries Association of Japan, and the Japan Electronic Industries Development Association.
- Peter Achermann: graduated in 1983 in Electrical Engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich and received a Ph.D. in natural sciences in 1988 at that same university. He currently is a professor and the Co-Director of The Human Sleep Laboratory, Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Zúrich. In his Declaration of Interest for ICNIRP, he states that he is Vice President of the Board for the IT´IS Foundation in Zurich, Switzerland. The members of this Board include numerous private corporations with interests in the promotion of telecommunications, such as: Ericsson Radio Systems AB, Sweden, Motorola USA, Motorola Singapore, Nokia Research Center Finland, NTT Communications Japan, NTT DoCoMo Japan, Orange S.A. France, Sunrise Communications AG Switzerland, T-Mobil Germany and Vodafone United Kingdom. Also, Achermann says that he is the Chairman of the Scientific Committee for the Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication of Zurich. Among the five founders of this organization are Swisscom, a Swiss telecommunications company, telephony and mobile telephony and Internet service provider; Orange; Sunrise a Swiss telecommunications provider based in Zurich; and 3G Mobile, liquidated in 2011. Although not mentioned in his ICNIRP Declaration of Interests or his resume posted on the ICNIRP website, we understand that he has collaborated on projects funded by the foundation.
The list goes on for many more pages with another 20 scientists with links to the telecom industry and the military whether monetary or familial.
So, when you hear “there’s no scientific evidence that supports there is any link between radio frequency radiation and health risks,” realise who is making these claims and why they might be negating the thousands of studies which are contrary to their statements.
Why do they dismiss these studies and are so cavalier when it comes to ensuring there won’t be any long or short term adverse effects to mankind or the environment?
There is far too much debate in the scientific world regarding the safety of RFR and 5G specifically, any other product would never hit the shelves with this much debate as to its safety. The possible reasons behind why this is being allowed are many and a subject for another time.
If you are on the fence and you are undecided ask you self, if you were purchasing a new car, and the company selling it to you told you it was safe, but an independent company who has nothing to gain from you buying or not buying the car, tells you it is not safe and should be removed from the market, would you believe the salesman because he now ridicules the independent safety advisor? Or would you slowly back away and head to the next nearest car dealership?
What do we have to lose?
If we don’t take the safe road and are wrong, we could be facing a huge increase in cancer, childhood disease, a further reduction in the populations of our pollinators. But you will be able to wear portable VR headwear and be driven around in driverless cars and sleep happily knowing your telecom companies and tech giants are richer than they have ever been.
If we do take the safe road and are wrong, the end result is you have to wait a few years to get your “faster download” speeds and vaccine ID chips. But at least you know you and your children were safe. It also would mean the tech giants will have to wait to get even more filthy rich than they already are.
If I was going to be wrong, I know which of those wrongs I would rather be.
If you would like to call for a fully impartial and complete independent investigation into the long and short term effect of 5G please sign the Citizen’s Forum’s Petition:
Stay safe Earth!
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.