Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Victor Leach himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.
Victor Leach is is a member of ORSAA – Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc.
***********
Who is spreading misinformation?
Victor Leach, ORSAA
We have heard a lot about misinformation or fake-news in recent times with the US presidential elections and the Covid-19 pandemic and 5G wireless rollout. It is not just concerned advocacy or activist groups that are spreading misinformation. It is also government agencies with a vested interested in wireless technology that are spreading untruths in varying degrees, or misrepresenting facts in their consumer advice to citizens. They are thereby failing their duty of care to citizens. I know we have heard this all before with tobacco smoking. However, there is one prime difference for consumers in the case of 5G radiofrequency radiation: they have no choice in the matter because exposure to 5G is happening to them whether they want it or not.
It is not surprising that citizens in this information age are seeking out truly independent advice so as to protect themselves and their families. In Australia, the government agency empowered with health advice on wireless technology is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). As you will see below, ARPANSA is also misleading the public.
New Radio (NR) or 5G NR might not be the most original name, but it’s what the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is about.
To the general population terms like “New Radio” give the impression this is just an extension of AM/FM radio. However, 5G NR with its complex modulations is not like radio. The term ‘radio’ sets up a false comparison, and is a slight of hand that misleads the public about what is really going on around them.
**********************************
ARPANSA says:
“It is important to note that higher frequencies does not mean higher or more intense exposure.”
This sentence is factually (and grammatically) incorrect. The millimetre waves have much higher frequencies than microwaves currently used for wireless communication, which will mean higher photon energy. This technology is not being used in isolation from existing technologies; rather it is added to them. In fact, the planned full deployment of the 5G network will include an extensive array of antennae (transmitters) that will be installed much more closely to homes than current 3G and 4G antennae. There will also see a large increase in base station numbers. Together, these two factors will make background environmental radiofrequency power density levels increase. However, ARPANSA’s “safety” limit is set very high and is based on short-term heating only (in fact, the ARPANSA guideline is one of the least stringent guidelines used in the world today). This means that in spite of the increase in exposure density, the introduction of 5G is unlikely to exceed the ICNIRP or ARPANSA guideline.
As well as increases in the intensity (levels of exposure), man-made RF-EMF is highly polarized, in phase at specific frequencies, and can constructively and destructively interfere. This means that these waves can add-up and subtract, so you will get hotspots. These carrier waves also contain complex low frequency modulations. This radiation is nothing like natural radiation in the frequency bands utilized.
Just because man-made radiation is non-ionizing does not automatically render it harmless. The well-known carcinogenic effects of ionising radiation are due to the action of single photons dislodging electrons from molecules. This does not happen with RF-EMF non‑ionising radiation; rather, the damage occurs in other ways. Artificial electromagnetic radiation (EMR) does not exist as single photons in space but as a series of waves containing a billion trillion photons in each cubic metre, acting synchronously and creating an overall force field that can move charges on molecules, including electrons. Therefore, the argument that there is insufficient energy from individual photons to break molecular bonds is an inaccurate description of how non‑ionizing electromagnetic waves interact with biological matter. This is analogous to saying that a tsunami wave cannot do material damage because an individual water molecule does not have sufficient energy. The ‘low level non‑ionizing radiation cannot do damage’ argument is simply industry spin on the science. Research shows that RF-EMF non-ionising radiation can cause metabolic and molecular changes.
In Australia, the telecommunication companies need to generate an environmental report for each base station and small cell. These reports are called “Environmental Electromagnetic Energy (EME)” reports. They estimate the maximum power density that will result during operation. These EME reports show a clear increase in the EMR emitted with the advent of 5G. EME reports .For example, the EME reports for the suburb HERSTON and Royal Brisbane Hospital base station, predict a 4 fold increase in maximum power density. The figure below shows the current and predicted exposures after the next upgrade.
ARPANSA says:
“Higher frequency radio waves are already used in security screening units at airports, police radar guns to check speed, remote sensors and in medicine and these uses have been thoroughly tested and found to have no negative impacts on human health.”
This is a poor comparison to back up ARPANSA claims of safety. Screening at airports is an intermittent exposure. What is being proposed is not intermittent exposure but widespread exposure 24/7. This is very different.
This claim that there will be no negative effects on human health cannot be substantiated, and requests to ARPANSA to provide such information has not been forthcoming. To back up their claim, ARPANSA needs to produce the studies of health outcomes for workers who have been exposed to millimetre waves from airport scans, radar guns etc. for many years compared with health outcomes for unexposed workers.
ARPANSA also says:
“We work independently from other parts of government and are not funded by industry.”
ARPANSA should explain to the Australian public how it can make this claim of independence from other parts of government and industry. This claim conflicts with reports that ARPANSA receives funding from the wireless industry via ACMA as part of an annual $1M levy that the ACMA receives to investigate the health impact of RF radiation (see below). ARPANSA should also clarify what proportion of these funds originating from the Australian wireless industry have gone to the International EMF Project at the WHO.
See section 3.102 “World Health Organization Electromagnetic Field Project”
The parliamentary Hansard extract below refers to funds that originate from the wireless industry and passed via ACMA:
“3.10 Funding for the whole program has been made available at the rate of $1 million per year starting on 1 January 1997. Of the $1 million, $700,000 goes to the NHMRC for the research program and the remaining $300,000 covers the involvement in the WHO International EMF Project ($US50,000 per year) and also the public information program ($131,000 spent by June 2000)“.
In effect, the ARPANSA information provided to the Australian public on the safety of wireless radiation is at least partially funded by the wireless industry. Furthermore, ARPANSA, ACMA and the wireless industry are reported to be working in partnership. It is projected that 5G licence sales will amount to approximately $852.8 million.
The downfall in ARPANSA
Several years ago (1972-1982), I worked for ARPANSA (in its former version called the Australian Radiation Laboratory). We worked hard and innovatively to fulfil our mission to protect workers and the general public from the harmful effects of ionising radiation, for example in hospitals and mining. We insisted that the Precautionary Principle be followed, to reduce levels down to absolute minimum possible exposures. We kept the workers safe by working with industry. To do this we had to stand up against pressure from big mining in Australia. We were not always popular with the companies, but I could always sleep at night.
My conclusion
I believe what is happening in Australia with governments misrepresenting the science is also happening elsewhere in the world.
As scientists, we are seeking the truth no matter how inconvenient this might be.
In my opinion, non-ionising radiation protection has been compromised globally. The precautionary principle needs to be enforced. There are safer alternatives to having communications taken over by wireless. Consumers need to be given the facts so they can protect themselves and their families. Sadly, this is not occurring. Instead, the telecommunications industry is holding the purse strings, and their ‘IT-will-solve-everything’ agenda is shaping and determining the future direction of the world. Meanwhile government health agencies, radiation protection bureaus, and media outlets have been coerced into believing the hype and misrepresenting the science. Their ignorance on this topic and their willingness to be led by commercial interests means they are abrogating their duty to protect the citizens of all nations and particularly sensitive groups such as children and the unwell. It is my hope that some will wake up and begin to do their duty, before too many more people are harmed.
