Just to recap, the Chairman of ICNIRP, ERIC VAN RONGEN, has been caught out misleading mainstream media on the adverse effects of RF and EMF, something he apologies for on a niche blog, but failed to correct with the news outlets he spoke with, go figure on that one when you read through this article picking apart ICNIRP’s new 2019 draft guidelines.

Download Guidelines here

Due to the ancient status of ICNIRP’s 2010 guidelines (not at all in keeping with industry’s acceleration with device tech) it’s time for an update, but again, they are failing to incorporate any studies or evidence that non-ionising radiation has any negative effects on our environment, animals and Humans, which if you care to spend a day reading through Smombie Gate’s archive, you will learn the complete opposite is true. Please bear in mind there still hasn’t been any real official research into the effects 5G tech and the unique way it utilises frequency, which also the European Union admits. Scientists and companies seem to be using finger in the air science to base their claims that 5G is safe, i.e. using calculations and observing people in the short-term are still breathing. I only have to take you back to what happened with global corporations pushing Asbestos, Tobacco and UV onto the public for you to get the picture that industry’s safety procedure is as follows, ‘stick a disclaimer onto the products, make as much money as possible and let Governments deal with the fallout.’

I’m sick of hearing scientists and naysayers who say things like this:

“It’s being rolled out, because the health guidelines of Radio-Frequency hasn’t been updated since 1996! Besides that, The sun/UV is “ionizing radiation” which can break apart your DNA. 5G is non-ionizing radiation which means it can’t break apart atoms nor destroy your DNA structure. non-ionizing outputs purely heat energy! That’s why we use inferred to toast bread! Think of the worlds most powerful torch, it’s visible light can burn skin cause of it’s power levels are high and focused! 5G at higher enough power levels can burn skin without causing cancer.”

This line of naysaying is easy to rebut…

We’ve evolved with the Sun since the beginning, you can argue there’s a need for the Sun for our survival on this planet. Who doesn’t know the Sun burns your skin? If you stay in the Sun too long, you will get Cancer over time or you will fry. The Sun rays are not low radio frequencies (RF) that passes through your cell structure and DNA, so the comparison is weak… answer me this, have we evolved to withstand what is millions of times more powerful forms of this RF in our natural environment? Just two minutes exposure from for instance a Smart Meter makes Human blood clump together, which is a consistent observation using Live Blood Microscopy. Here’s countless studies from scientists and doctors using controlled scientific methods to prove it harms cells, take a look. Not to mention, the genuine fallout from adults, especially children all getting Cancer about the same time after a few years of living or going to school near a mobile phone mast.’

RF was classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen (IARC/ WHO) in 2011. This was based on higher brain tumour rates (glioma and acoustic neuroma – a type of Schwannoma) found in longer term mobile phone users. Some may say, ‘but hang on, every telecoms company and even the Government say RF is safe?’ Hmmm… No they don’t. Here’s a lovely example from Apple where they basically say they’ve tested all the parts of their iPhone, but once it’s been made and depending on the strength of your mobile phone mast, we can’t say it’s remotely safe to use:

“iPhone has been tested and meets applicable limits for radio frequency (RF) exposure.
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) refers to the rate at which the body absorbs RF energy. The SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram in countries that set the limit averaged over 1 gram of tissue and 2.0 watts per kilogram in countries that set the limit averaged over 10 grams of tissue. During testing, iPhone radios are set to their highest transmission levels and placed in positions that simulate uses against the head, with no separation, and when worn or carried against the torso of the body, with 10mm separation. To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified. Although this device has been tested to determine SAR in each band of operation, not all bands are available in all areas. Bands are dependent on your service provider’s wireless and roaming networks.”

One thing we can all agree on is that the Human Body is an insanely resilient piece of technology. It has the strength to resist starvation in Nazi concentration camps to being exposed to the Sun and RF and EMF everyday. But there is a price, either the shortening of one’s life or worse, Cancer. Anyone who attempts to refute this reasonable claim that’s based on all the archives contained in Smombie Gate, please go ahead and kill yourself over there, I’m trying to save some people here.

MORE INFO HERE  Colorectal Cancer Soaring in Young Adults; Are Smartphones in the Mix?

Anyway, the new guidelines underwent a public consultation with 120 contributions and 1000 individual comments, so surely more truth would surface around the harmful nature of RF and EMF, maybe even some new studies detailing 5G is safe? Let’s see…

ICNIRP: Reference levels are derived so as to be conservative for all realistic exposure conditions, but not all possible exposure conditions.

Plain English this means, we’ve pulled together a bunch of stuff from credible scientists, you know those people in white coats that undergo severe conditioning in schools to comply with the ever ‘expanding’ religion called Science. You know that ‘narrative thing’ that seems to evolve everyday according to the flow of power, status and money. So you have to believe them, as they are established science, they are the authorised persons that say the UK Government relies upon to make sure the stuff the Public uses is safe. It must be safe! They have tested all the devices that use RF and EMF in every real life scenario, you know, like being in an electric-powered car with a family of five, the GPS is on, Bluetooth is on, WIFI is on, five smartphones are on, maybe two tablets are on and both adults are wearing smartwatches. ICNIRP declares on their website:

“ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.”

Tell me this, surely, uploading a PDF of their Guidelines is accurate enough to stand behind?

MORE INFO HERE  Brain tumour risk grows

ICNIRP states:

“• No evidence that RF EMF causes such diseases as cancer
– Results of NTP, Falcioni studies (animals, lifetime exposure) not convincing (statement on ICNIRP website)
• No evidence that RF EMF impairs health beyond effects that are due to established mechanisms of interaction
• Thermal biology literature also considered”

Simple observation here… See ICNIRP’s website terms statement above, it clearly states everything on their website could be wrong. Maybe, my own observations are off, but ICNIRP at this point seem like a completely random organisation that says something is safe, but doesn’t guarantee it and doesn’t take any responsibility for its publications accuracy. But hey, they’re men in white robes, I mean coats from the religion of science, oppps, I mean, scientists from the established and credible body of science. Just think, Western Governments default to ICNIRP’s guidance on what’s safe.

One mention of children in all the Guidelines:

100 kHz-110 MHz

(guidance levelreference level)

10 sec

20/10 mA (adult/child)

1

20 mA

40 mA

1

20/10 mA (ad./child)20 mA

A reasonable Human Being would say that tolerances between men, women and children to RF and EMF are different even without being decorated with any science or engineering degrees, but according to ICNIRP, this isn’t the case. Your Governments have put your children’s health into the hands of a private body of scientists who on paper haven’t made such a fundamental differentiation in their Guidelines, the definition of the subject is flawed when you read excerpts from studies on RF and EMF exposure:

“Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumour can be decades, tumours induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The foetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR.”
Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences by L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari, Devra Lee Davis: Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure
Volume 2, Issue 4, December 2014, Pages 197-204

Basic restrictions for 5G frequencies (general public) and Reference levels for 5G frequencies (far field, general public):

The first thing about these charts is that with all the billions of various currencies thrown into investors, Governments’ and land owners pockets by Telecoms, surely there would be some money left to have completed the studies in order to fill out such simple charts that detail what RF levels are safe for Humans (remember, it’s not even split out for women and children). Granted this is a draft, and ICNIRP have stated not to cite this document, but come on. The industry, Governments’ and ICNIRP have had at least 9 BLINKING YEARS to gather data on 5G, it’s not like it just showed up yesterday. The least these ‘gatekeepers’ could have done is have a full and accurate dataset. Oh damn, I forgot, please see ICNIRP’s terms… ‘It wasn’t me.’

MORE INFO HERE  Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development

The second thing I see that measurements like 10-30 W/m2 are not uncommon to read from professional meters standing 20 metres away from a 4G mobile phone mast operating at 2.4Ghz. And it’s certainly not uncommon for a 4G mobile phone to reach 20-60 W/m2 in the 2.4Ghz range when it use. If the barriers of 5G are are lower, then what are the risks to people walking around in a street with their phone causing local radiation coupled with 5G phased array technology beamforming onto their heads where their phones are situated? Please see ICNIRP’s terms and get clause,

“Reference levels are derived so as to be conservative for all realistic exposure conditions, but not all possible exposure conditions.”

To make this super-easy to understand, their datasets do not differentiate if you are men, woman or child and they do not cover your exposure if you are using your phone in the close proximity of a mast, all they have done is set an arbitrary limit hoping that the Industry will think of these things. In reality, no corporation is thinking this way. Instead companies like Apple don’t even consider their iPhone as one unit when they test for radiation, they just test all the little pieces inside separately and do not offer any liability once it’s all put together into it’s metal casing. Combine everything you are exposed to on a daily basis, the cumulative effect especially in a big city will be beyond ICNIRP’s guidelines. Nice little loophole, surely the men in white robes from the religion of Science would have seen these things and did more accurate real world guidelines?

Just imagine this for one moment, I’ve produced a tiny fraction of the proof that RF and EMF is harmful, and I have only represented a small part of the corruption and deception that is involved in the Telecoms industry who are using loopholes in ICNIRP’s Guidelines, a body that has a chairman that lies to the media and cannot even put their name to anything they publish on their website. Any naysayer who says that everything is OK, nothing to see here, are being ignorant to the most fundamental basic flaws I’ve stated in this article. If I was reporting on any other industry, there would be Hell to pay. But the sad reality is that there are more phones than people on this planet, and people cannot see what doesn’t hurt them. Until concerned people like us find ways to show that categorically NOBODY knows what is going to happen to a child if it’s given a tablet or a smartphone to play with 2 hours a day; and there is enough evidence to deduce they will be some form of harm, then why on Earth would the Government and Industry go ahead with toxic 5G tech rollouts even when Ericsson engineers say things like this:

“Very large exclusion zone due to unrealistic power – may lead to substantial 5G deployment challenges.”