Thank you Eileen. It’s voices like yours and articles like these that will make the difference.

We are honoured at the EM Radiation Research Trust to have worked with world leading scientists such as Professor Yury Grigoriev and Professor Oleg Grigoriev of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia. Professor Yury and Oleg Grigoriev are highly qualified having published hundreds of scientific papers on biological effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation along with many books. They are also advisors to WHO on EMF and Health. But more importantly they are men of integrity and men of honour. Both Professors have given many warnings and powerful presentation’s with regards to non-ionising radiation. Professor Yury Grigoriev has also worked actively for the state governmental program on creation of nuclear protection since 1949. His expertise was called upon to help contain the Chernobyl disaster after accumulating 40 years experience before the failure in Chernobyl. I directly asked Professor Yury Grigoriev a question with respect to comparing the severity of non-ionizing radiation compared to ionizing radiation. He said, “Ionizing radiation is monitored with safety systems in place to contain and control and prevent overexposure. The current proliferation of wireless frequencies is worse as levels of non-ionizing radiation are constantly increasing and ubiquitous; it is out of control. The world-wide dissemination of mobile telecommunications has resulted in new sources of large-scale population exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevention of childhood and juvenile diseases from exposure to EMF sources is of paramount social and economic importance. It is one of the bases for public health policy in the near and long-term future. The human brain and the nervous system tissues directly perceive EMF and react irrespective of its intensity, and in certain cases it depends on EMF modulation. This feature distinguishes EMF from all other environmental factors and complicates 3 human health risk assessment for EMF exposure. A situation has emerged that cumulative EMF exposure of children may be comparable to adult exposure and may be equal to the levels of occupational exposure of workers. The current standards are outdated and inadequate. Urgent action is needed to curb the negative impact from this physical agent.”

Professor Yury Grigoriev also famously said: “Man conquered the Black Plague, but he has created new problems – EMF Pollution.”

Furthermore, there is not one study to prove this technology is safe, but there are thousands which prove it to be unsafe. The BioInitiative Working Group has reviewed 1000’s of peer reviewed scientific papers: http://www.bioinitiative.org . This group of researchers highlights the fact that Bioeffects are clearly established to occur with very low exposure levels of (non-thermal levels) to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation exposures. The report calls for the precautionary approach and urgent action due to chronic EMF-related diseases that are a potential risk for everyone. These diseases include adverse effects on the central nervous system, cancer initiating and promoting effects, impairments of certain brain functions, loss of memory and cognitive function and infertility and immune dysfunction.

The work of independent scientists needs to be taken seriously. Studies, independent of industry consistently demonstrate significant risks. Professor Henry Lai from the University of Washington highlighted this perfectly following an analysis of 326 studies on mobile phone radiation between 1990 and 2006. Industry-funded studies were only 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of non-industry funded studies.

I am sure you are also aware of the fact that in May 2011 the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, IARC, voted to classify the RF – EMF Spectrum as a 2B or “possible human carcinogen” for the entire spectrum and therefore firmly falls into the proper application of the Precautionary Principle as defined in various European Commission documents. It is therefore not ethical or acceptable to promote or offer claims of safety for risky technology to the public. Many scientists including the Hardell Group from Sweden are calling for an urgent upgrade to the classification of RF – EMF from 2B to Group 1 – This would be in the same carcinogenic category as tobacco and asbestos. Dr Hardell stated “the agent is carcinogenic to humans and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed for the entire spectrum.”

The Radiation Research Trust are very concerned for public health and especially for the health of our children. We are astounded to hear that the UK Government are allowing the deployment of further untested and unregulated technology with the introduction of 5G to add to the layers of 2G, 3G, 4G phone masts, Wi-Fi, smart meters etc. 5G masts will appear on every street starting within the major cities and without any public consultation and we have no say.

US Senator Blumenthal criticized the FCC and FDA as they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G. So please share the science if it exists?

Swiss Re Group is one of the world’s leading insurance providers and have recently rated 5G as a “high impact” risk affecting property and casualty claims within 3 years. Who will indemnify UK citizens against 5G personal injuries or reduced property values? Will the UK Government be responsible for allowing our country to install untested and unregulated technology? Download the Swiss Re report here: https://www.radiationresearch.org/articles/swiss-re-rated-5g-high-impact/?fbclid=IwAR1asU6TTPcTR1uZEaswbl9hppH_3oliIKO0GoMJimoFvk4B5PsbK73Fk-4

Please get yourself a 5G phone and then report back with your experiences.

It’s unfortunate that the article promotes so many myths about the health risks of 5G, because the technology has the potential to actually bring many health benefits, though remote consultation, diagnosis and surgery.

There are so many misleading claims in the article that it would require an article of equal length to refute them all, but briefly…

The article suggests that the frequencies used in the new network are more harmful than those used in 4G and earlier systems. In fact, the reverse is true: the higher frequencies used by 5G cannot penetrate the skin as easily as lower-frequency radio waves.

The article also implies that, by using focused beams, the technology is likely to cause more harm than 4G, which uses omni-directional antennas. In fact, by focusing the beams where they are needed, 5G masts can broadcast at lower power levels.

The article suggests that the frequencies used by 5G are carcinogenic. As the American Cancer Society (cancer.org) points out, cell-phone towers use non-ionising radiation, which means … “they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer.” cancer.org’s article on mobile phone masts (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html) is a balanced and objective look at this issue.

The Bioinitiative Report, on which the article relies for most of its bogus authenticity, was self-published online, and was criticised for its bias and lack of balance.
The Health Council of the Netherlands said the report contained false claims and was not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge.
The European Commission’s EMF-NET coordination group for investigating the impact of electromagnetic fields on health attacked the report’s lack of balance.
The French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (AFSSET) said the report is “tinged with conflicts of interest in several chapters, does not reflect a collective effort, and is written in militant style.”

By publishing this article, you are stoking a conspiracy theory that originated in Russia, as the New York Times reported on May 12th (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html).
The conspiracy started with a scaremongering TV programme on RT America, which is “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”
It’s unclear why the Russian government is promoting these lies, but a possible explanation is that Russian comms technology lags behind the West, and by spreading worrying myths, the Russians hope to slow 5G uptake until they can catch up.