Share

“Taking a Breath …” Editorial

 

 

Excerpts

 

… Much like Roentgen’s 1895 experiments, current radiation safety guidelines for radiofrequency (RF) radiation (a type of non-ionizing radiation used in wireless technology) are based solely on energy absorption: thermal effect is measured [11]. In a Report and Order adopted in 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last established a set of guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of RF exposure [12]. “These [24-year-old] guidelines remain in effect today and include limits for specific absorption rate (SAR, the present metric for highly-localized, close-in exposure at commonly-used frequencies) and maximum permissible exposure (MPE, the measure for more-distant, whole-body exposure and for whole-body exposure at higher frequencies) [13].” The MPE limits are based on exposure criteria quantified in terms of SAR, a measure of the rate of RF energy absorption (much like in 1895) [12]. Yet there is an overwhelming body of evidence in the international scientific community demonstrating the biological effects of wireless radiation as “clearly established to occur with very low exposure levels (non-thermal levels) to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation exposures [14]”. As just one example, like the indirect effect of ionizing radiation on DNA, wireless radiation can cause DNA damage via free radical (oxidative effects) [14,15].”

MORE INFO HERE  Scientific Evidence that 5G and 4G Densification Is Not Safe

“Per the FCC, 5G stands for the fifth generation of mobile communications. 5G uses millimeter (MMW) waves, “a higher-frequency band than 2G, 3G, or 4G ever used [17].” Joel

Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, and University of California, Berkeley states: “Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility) [18].” Also, “Unfortunately, few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity MMWs [millimeter waves], and no research that I am aware of has focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other radiofrequency radiation [19].””

 

“What does it take for the public, a scientist, or a government official to “believe” in and act on the science? I’m not sure. I just know that I was able to discern and act, based on the science, decades before my government, with just an 8th grade education. I don’t want this piece cited decades from now, recounting our early history of the use of wireless radiation “without precaution” and reporting on the subsequent morbidity and mortality “after years of latency.” We can do better than accepting the “boards of pinewood” experiments measuring only the thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation. Let’s halt 5G and small cell site deployment until the safety profile of both is fully understood. Let’s take a breath.”

 

By Carol Anne Soltanek Taccetta, M.D., F.C.A.P., Pharmaceutical Medical Consulting, Newbury Park, CA, USA

 

Share

https://ehtrust.org/taking-a-breath-editorial-re-health-effects-of-wireless-radiation-open-journal-of-public-health/ Source: Environmental Health Trust