Share

Message From Victor Leach regarding the important paper is titled: Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above  6 GHz” by Karipidis et al. This paper is open access, so that you can download it  here. 

Since sending out the email below 6 days ago, [regadring Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above  6 GHz” by Karipidis et al.] we have reached 490 reads on the ResearchGate link provided and 297 reads on the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (JESEE) journal website. There have been 85 downloads of the supplementary data on our website and over 120 hits on our ORSAA Database of EMF Bioeffects (ODEB),

I worked for ARPANSA when it was called the Australian Radiation Laboratory (ARL) from 1970 to the ’80s. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) was formed from the ARL because the government required a separate agency to oversee nuclear safety at Lucas Heights.

I am very disappointed in this 5G review undertaken by the NIR group at ARPANSA and have also voiced my strong concerns about the bias shown in the ARPANSA internal review report TR 164: Review of Radiofrequency Health Effects Research – Scientific Literature 2000 – 2012. Following on from this report, there was a poor quality paper NSW school survey that we have critiqued.; e.g., the school survey was done with no children in the classroom, so it was not representative of a real classroom.

ARPANSA is a Commonwealth regulator, which means that the ICNIRP standard might be fit for their purpose in regulating safety in Commonwealth departments and authorities like Health, CSIRO, ANSTO and Defence. This is because these Commonwealth departments that ARPANSA regulates perform risky research and need a standard that gives them the most flexibility. However, the ARPANSA standard is not fit to protect whole populations that are mass irradiated 24/7.

The Australian parliamentary committee’s inquiry into 5G in Australia did not specifically address health, even though most submissions (over 85%) were on health-related matters. The people who submitted to the 5G inquiry were not scaremongering but were seeking answers. These health submissions, although published, were essentially ignored.

More broadly, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), like the FCC in the USA, is the regulator for wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation. So the ACMA selects the standard to be used. Despite what you are told, ARPANSA is not the regulator and does not administer the Australian Radiocommunications Act, whereas ACMA does. ACMA is the health regulator in this instance and has selected the ARPANSA standard, which is the least protective standard based on the ICNIRP guidelines. ACMA has a major conflict of interest as it receives monies from the sale of spectrum licences and has selected the least protective ICNIRP guidelines for its standard.

ACMA has “hand-balled” its responsibility to ARPANSA, claiming ARPANSA is independent. The question we should ask: Is this the case? ARPANSA supports the ICNIRP short-term heating-only standard and ignores the plausible long-term risk associated with lower-level exposure to human health and the wider environment. As David Suzuki(environmentalist) said a long-time ago, we need to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that sustain us. We continue to ignore the effects on the natural environment in our endeavour to use technology to solve our perceived needs. The economic imperative drives these needs.

Previous and current politicians in the communications portfolio have a history of being telecommunication directors or legal advisors. 5G wireless communication will result in the densification of man-made radiation in the cities first and then the suburbs with a 5G antenna on about every third street pole. This amounts to mass exposure of populations without permission. I believe the ARPANSA standard based on the ICNIRP guidelines is unsuitable.

We need a senate inquiry or an inquiry like the Fox inquiry. The Australian 5G inquiry was a 5G “love-in” focusing on technology and did not address health, in much the same way that  ICNIRP has been accused of operating as a closed cartel. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363731884_The_European_Union_prioritises_economics_over_health_in_the_rollout_of_radiofrequency_technologies )

Regards

Victor Leach

(ORSAA Secretary)

PS: Maybe a rest from additive technology is not a bad idea. https://thegreataustralianswitchoff.com

Share

https://ehtrust.org/5g-review-by-australian-radiation-protection-and-nuclear-safety-agency-is-biased/ Source: Environmental Health Trust