City Of Boston Calls Out FCC on Insufficient and Outdated Wireless Radiation Safety Limits (Circa 1996)


City Of Boston Calls Out FCC on Insufficient and Outdated Wireless Radiation Safety Limits (Circa 1996)

By B.N. Frank

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the Telecom Industry. They have a long history of catering to the industry instead. Current FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, describes this as “not being heavy handed.”

Other government agencies as well as doctors, elected officials, and scientists have taken issue with many of their decisions (see 1234). It’s even caused dissension within the agency. Now the City of Boston is also making a stink.

From 5G Crisis:

The City of Boston recently submitted a comment to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) outlining flaws with the agency’s 1996 wireless radiation safety limits. The City urged the Commission to reevaluate and update its limits to reflect how wireless technologies are being used and deployed today.

“Boston believes that the concerns of the public are real and that the Commission has done a disservice to itself, local government, consumers, and even the wireless industry in failing to understand and respond to the broadly shared mistrust of the safety of RF emissions.

The public does not believe that the FCC’s RF exposure standards are safe nor based on science. They cite that the standards were first established by the Commission more than twenty-four year ago. Standards that were established at a time when very few consumers had cell phones, let alone the mini wireless computers that the majority of consumers carry today. They were established in an era of 1 and 2 G deployment, not the 5G and beyond that the nation can expect in the years to come. Early tests and reports focused either on handset emissions in proximity to a user’s head or macro cell tower deployment. None of these tests contemplated the street-level deployment we see today as a result of SWFs in the public rights-of-way. And, despite the changes in the number and type of RF devices and the proximity to individuals, the FCC simply reaffirmed its decade old standards in its December 2019 Order.”

Read the City of Boston’s full comment to the FCC here.

City Of Boston Calls Out FCC on Insufficient and Outdated Wireless Radiation Safety Limits (Circa 1996)

Leszczynski on ICNIRP and 5G

Leszczynski on ICNIRP and 5G

WE KNOW THAT WE DON’T KNOW BUT… UNDER DICTATE FROM TELECOMS AND ICNIRP, GOVERNMENTS DEPLOY 5G WITHOUT PRE-MARKET TESTING AND WITHOUT SETTING RESEARCH AGENDA ON 5G AND HEALTH. Yesterday, I came across a document, posted on twitter, from the Polish Ministry of Digital Affairs. The letter from Waldemar Kraska, Secretary of State, is addressed to Ms. Elżbieta Witek, Marszałek of Sejm (Speaker of Sejm). Here is the photo of the letter and google translation to English. “Dear Madam Marshal,In response to the inquiry no. 1048 submitted by Mr. Deputy Jarosław Rzepa on June 4, 2020, regarding the introduction of 5G technology in Poland, please accept the following.When answering question 1, it should be noted that there is no data yet on the impact of 5G technology on the health and life of Poles – the launch of such networks has begun in recent months. In February this year WHO has found that so far little research has been done into the frequencies used in newly developed 5G networks….SNIP
Read on »

Recent Swedish article on chemical emissions and human health


Recent Swedish article on chemical emissions and human health

Excerpt: Health hazards in the form of dangerous chemicals are built into electronic devices when these are manufactured. As scrap, the devices are an environmental risk to both nature and people. But it is less known that the devices can leak hazardous substances during normal use.The role of the chemicals as an essential cause of ill-health is surprisingly rarely discussed. Above all, there is no detailed discussion of possible relationship between chemicals and so called new diseases such as multiple chemical hypersensitivity, electrical hypersensitivity and chronic fatigue…SNIP
Read on »

Whose Conspiracy Is It?

Whose Conspiracy Is It?

On June 4, 2020, the FCC General Counsel published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post titled “5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery” The FCC’s op-ed was published in the Washington Post (which is owned by Amazon’s Bezos). The article also attacked the Children’s Health Defense case against the FCC for its decision not to review its obsolete “health” guidelines. Following is CHD’s response article “Whose Conspiracy is it Mr. Johnson“, written by Susan Foster and me (Dafna Tachover).

This FCC’s article was especially disturbing to us because of its dangerous rhetoric. The “conspiracy theory” rhetoric is typical of corrupt industries like the FCC’s master, Big Telecom. But when a government agency uses this rhetoric to target a group, blaming it for being a “threat” to the state, we should all be very concerned. Some of the darkest times in history started this way, including the McCarthy era in the US.

The good news is that the FCC’s article is an indication that our efforts are having an impact and that the agency and its co-conspirators are concern. They have good reasons to be. The article concludes:”The conspiracy hunt should begin and end with Mr. Johnson’s agency.” 

Please be aware that as part of the conspiracy theorists’ witch hunt conducted by Telecom against those of us who speak against 5G and other truths, both me personally and CHD have been “shadow blocked” by Facebook and other social media. Therefore, the best way not to miss our updates, is to Sign up to the Children’s Health Defense Newsletter.

This 4th of July I am wishing us all for a presidential candidate that whose slogan would be to “Make America FREE Again“…


Input caption text here. Use the block’s Settings tab to change the caption position and set other styles.

Whose Conspiracy Is It, Mr. Johnson?
CHD’s Response to FCC General Counsel’s Op-Ed in the Washington Post

Written By: Susan Foster & Dafna Tachover, Director of CHD’s Stop 5G and Wireless Harms Project

The Washington Post published a June 4, 2020 Op-Ed “5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery” by Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., General Counsel for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr. Johnson employed fallacious straw-man arguments by dramatically pointing his finger at the wrong target in order to avoid the real problem: his client, the FCC, and those like the Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, who is heavily invested in 5G. All Mr. Johnson really did is confirm Harvard University’s Center for Ethics’ publication showing that the FCC is a “Captured Agency”  that has “overlooked, sacrificed, or raided” “consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets,” “due to unchecked industry influence.”

You bring in a straw-man to mercilessly thrash in order to shift attention from the opponent’s real argument. Mr. Johnson resorts to this tactic because he knows the FCC and its industry masters cannot prevail on the merits. A proper argument would be “stop worrying about 5G, here is the latest science to prove that 5G is safe!” But he cannot do so because the FCC lacks even a single study showing 5G is safe.

The op-ed claims: “Conjectures about 5G’s effect on human health are long on panic and short on science.”  The “conspiracy” rhetoric is a basic industry-captured agency tactic to distract from the truth. It is the FCC and telecoms who are panicking, and they have a good reason.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) recently sued the FCC after its December 2019 decision refusing to update their 25-year-old “health” guidelines regarding wireless radiation health effects. The FCC guidelines are “thermally based” in that they protect only from temperature change in tissue from 30 minutes of acute exposure. The FCC, like Mr. Johnson, claims there is “no evidence” of harm from long-term exposure to non-thermal effects. They obviously did not bother to review the thousands of studies and reports that were submitted to the FCC showing clear evidence of profound adverse effects in levels in order of magnitude lower than the FCC’s “safe” levels. The FCC also ignored “human evidence” in the form of testimony by people who have been gravely injured or lost family members from exposure at FCC-authorized levels.

FCC lack scientific validity

The FCC admits it has no expertise in these health issues, and so it relies on its “sister agencies” to decide what its standards should be. There’s a problem: a host of sister agencies’ (including the Air Force, Navy, NASA, the EPA and National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS)) own studies and/or reports have confirmed there are significant risks, effects and/or harms from wireless. The U.S. Access Board and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) found that emissions within FCC guidelines can lead to Electromagnetic Sensitivity (Microwave/Radiation Sickness) and that it is a disability under the ADA. The FCC often mentions the EPA as a “sister agency” on which it relies in order to give credibility to its guidelines. However, it omits mentioning that 27 years ago the EPA wrote the FCC that the guidelines are “flawed,” and has continued to argue that they do not protect the public health. In 2014, the Department of Interior stated that the Guidelines are “30 years out of date and inapplicable today” and cause harm to the environment. In December of 2018, NBC reported that the U.S. government believes that the “mystery sickness” of the diplomats in Cuba was caused by Microwave-based technologies. A paper that was published in the MIT Press provides the scientific evidence showing that indeed RFR is the likely cause.

Mr. Johnson also failed to mention the recent $25 million study of cell phone radiation by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which found “clear evidence of cancer”  and DNA damage. The NTP is the federal government expert agency responsible for evaluation of toxins. Its determinations are considered to be the scientific gold standard. Another study, the Ramazzini Institute study,  a 6 million euro study, confirmed the results of the NTP. In 2011, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B),  explaining that while there is epidemiological evidence, more animal studies are needed. The NTP and the Ramazzini studies have now provided the “missing link” for IARC to re-classify RF radiation as a human carcinogen (Group 1).

The 1,479-page BioInitiative Report is an extensive scientific review of 3,800 studies. The report concludes that bio-effects from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart meters can occur within minutes of exposure. The BioInitiative report was authored by 29 leading scientists from 10 countries, with 10 MDs and 21 PhDs. The Co-Editor of the report is Professor David Carpenter, MD., the Director of the Institute for Health and Environment, University of Albany, a collaborating center with the World Health Organization. He is also one of the Petitioners in the CHD case.

Numerous other scientists and doctors wrote the FCC urging the agency to develop biologically based guidelines such as the American Pediatric Association and the California Medical Association which  passed a resolution calling on the FCC to “implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.”

The FCC should acknowledge that its entire emissions standards framework is invalid. If the Commission is truly interested in “science” it should develop biologically based guidelines that address long term exposure to pulsed and modulated signals, and nonthermal levels of Radio-Frequency Radiation (RFR). Instead, it willfully ignores conclusive and massive scientific evidence and, just like Mr. Johnson’s op-ed, resorts to empty rhetoric.

The human cost for FCC failure

The FCC’s obstinate 25-year failure to recognize these risks carries a hefty price of widespread sickness and death. Other petitioners in CHD’s case include two physicians who constantly see the sickness in their clinic, parents of four children who developed radiation sickness; and a mother who lost her son to a Glioblastoma brain cancer. This is the same type of brain cancer that killed Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and Joe Biden’s son, Beau Biden.

On April 19, 2020 Children’s Health Defense filed a letter to the FCC opposing the Commission’s proposed Over The Air Receiving Devices (OTARD) rule expansion which would allow 5G cell towers on private homes. The letter was signed by 15,090 people, 6,231 of whom declared that they or their children have become sick from wireless radiation. Approximately 2,500 people offered additional comments that gave voice to people’s pain, their loss of family members, homes, and their inability to live in this increasingly wireless world. This glaring and tragic personification of pain and loss in the face of damage from 5G, cell towers, smart meters, cell phones, Wi-Fi and other wireless devices makes it clear Mr. Johnson’s strident, unprincipled screed is merely an effort to hide extraordinary cruelty: the FCC is willing to let people get sick and/or die just so its industry masters can spread more of their poison.

In 2013, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia joined the calls to the FCC to update its guidelines, and asked the Commission to pay particular attention to people and children who have already been sickened by wireless emissions and need accommodations that will allow them to avoid non-consensual exposure. The FCC ignored their pleas.

These are the federal agencies, local jurisdictions, individuals, scientists and doctors behind what Mr. Johnson’s refers to as “5G conspiracy theories” that threaten the economy. This background makes Mr. Johnson’s rhetoric especially disturbing. It resembles that of the Nazis when they blamed the Jews for being a threat to Germany’s recovery and of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 50’s when he conducted a witch hunt of communists who threatened the U.S. security. Have we learned nothing?

The FCC actions and Mr. Johnson’s dangerous rhetoric leave no doubt that it has no real interest in meaningfully reviewing its guidelines or protecting the public’s health. These false guidelines have enabled uncontrolled wireless growth, and now the FCC is aggressively forcing 5G. The FCC is cheerleading interconnecting 20 billion more devices wirelessly, the deployment of 50,000 satellites, 1,000,000 ground antennas to connect with the satellites and 800,000 cell towers on our streets and neighborhoods. In many cases, these 5G “small” but powerful cell antennas are installed a few feet away from people’s homes and children’s bedrooms and the harms are already happening. CHD is in touch with many families who got sick within days of the installation of one of these 5G antennas near their homes.

Inaction is not an option

Over 230 scientists including the world’s leading scientists on RF-EMF (of a distinctively different caliber than the industry-funded mercenaries on which the FCC relies), signed the 5G Appeal, calling for a moratorium on 5G. They wrote that wireless radiation is: “proven to be harmful to humans and the environment” and that “effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on the general well-being of humans” and concluded that a pan-epidemic of sickness from wireless already exists and “Inaction is a cost to society and is not an option anymore.”

The FCC has made it clear that the cost to society is not its concern. Since 1996, the FCC has blocked efforts against wireless deployment based on health concerns. It is no longer even trying to disguise its bullying tactics to strip long-cherished state and local zoning measures, and it even blocks efforts by those who are already sick to obtain accommodation for their disability.

On June 17, 2020 the city of Boston wrote the FCC, “Boston believes that the concerns of the public are real and that the Commission has done a disservice to itself, local government, consumers, and even the wireless industry in failing to understand and respond to the broadly shared mistrust of the safety of RF emissions. The public does not believe that the FCC’s RF exposure standards are safe nor based on science.”

Now that the truth the FCC has tried to keep in the dark is coming to light, Mr. Johnson tries to use the few who connect 5G with Covid-19 to condemn all who object to 5G. This desperate maneuver to distract merely reveals the actual conspiracy that is afoot: the industry and FCC are contriving against the public and trying to suppress all dissent. The conspiracy hunt should begin and end with Mr. Johnson’s agency.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

IEEE Engineers are Speaking UP-management is taking down their articles as fast as they can.


IEEE engineers are speaking up, and IEEE management is taking down their articles as fast as they can.

This is the latest article on 5G that has been removed. It can be found on webcache at:

Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?

was removed recently

Retraction notice:

5G: For Immediate Release  People of Berkeley v ATT and 5G

5G:  For Immediate Release  People of Berkeley v ATT and 5G

On Monday June 22, installation of an ATT 4G “small” cell antenna, expected to be converted to 5G, was scheduled to begin at 1321 Gilman Street in the public right of way near the Berkeley Natural Grocery.  Keeping physical distance, masked members of WIreless Radiation and Education Defense (WiRED ) and concerned neighbors chatted amicably with workers while refusing to leave the site until the workers packed up their traffic cones and jackhammer and departed without working.  The activists then went to Monterey Market where another antenna has been permitted.  People took turns keeping watch at both sites all day and will continue all week. Fourteen additional permits have been approved in Berkeley including several near schools. A deluge of applications is expected.

The City Manager has been repeatedly urged to revoke the permit for 1321 Gilman because ATT neglected to inform neighbors in advance, as required by law, there is no gap in service, and there are several application errors.  Installation is not an essential activity during the covid crisis.

The telecom industry plans to deploy 5G antennas on every block.  For over two years, Berkeley residents have lobbied for stricter telecom regulations, which will be decided on July 7 at a 4:00 PM City Council meeting via Zoom.  Massive amounts of data will be collected via 5G for marketing and surveillance.  Cell antennas and accessory equipment are eyesores that ruin the aesthetic character of neighborhoods.  Wireless antennas pose fire risks, waste energy, and harm wildlife including bees.  Property values decrease by over 20% nearby, and local businesses are harmed.

The roll out of “small” cells in neighborhoods means involuntary exposure to a proven health hazard 24/7.  Over a thousand independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies prove harm from wireless technologies, including the ten-year, $30 million, FDA-ordered U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study on 2G and 3G wireless technology.  Results released in 2018 showed “clear evidence” of cancer, DNA damage and fetal effects.  The Ramazzini Study in Italy, partially funded by the U.S., is the world’s largest study on cell tower radiation.  Results confirmed a cancer link at lower levels of radiation exposure than the U.S. NTP study.  Scientists at Yale University linked fetal exposure to wireless radiation with abnormal brain development in lab animals.

Frank Clegg, President of Microsoft Canada, stated, “The more research I do and the more experts I talk to, the more concerned I become. 5G technology has not been tested… gives off radio-frequency radiation which is absorbed in the human body and accumulates.”  But the Federal Communications Commission was long ago captured by industry, so cities and states may not enact 5G moratoria and are preempted from basing telecom regulations on health or environmental factors.  A flyer posted at 1321 Gilman laments the loss of democracy.

“5G ready antenna densification” is often confused with a “5G” label on some cell phones and WiFi routers which refers to 5 GHz.  “Fifth Generation”  5G uses much higher frequencies, in the 25 GHz to 90 GHz range. 5G technology requires “small” cell antennas installed on utility and light poles such as the one on Gilman Street, buildings and bus stops, spaced 2-10 homes apart for nonessential perks like driverless cars, faster video downloads and the Internet of Things leading to household appliances and products from milk cartons to diapers having microchips or antennas connecting wirelessly.  Wired connections will always be much faster, more reliable, and safer.


Contacts for press:

Phoebe Sorgen  (photos of 6/22 action available on request) 510-919-6431

5th Canadian Municipality Calls for 5G Moratorium. Niagara Falls and Ontario Elected Officials Concerned About Safety

5th Canadian Municipality Calls for 5G Moratorium. Niagara Falls and Ontario Elected Officials Concerned About Safety.

By B.N. Frank

Opposition to 5G is WORLDWIDE.  Cities AND countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation as well as issue moratoriums (see 12345678, 91011).  Since 2017, doctors and scientists have been requesting a 5G moratorium on Earth as well as in space (see 12, 3).  Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G has been turned on (see 1234).

There’s no doubt that other sources of wireless and Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) can cause and have caused biological and environmental problems too.  However, experts continue to warn that adding 5G to already dangerous levels of “Electrosmog” is a recipe for disaster (see 12, 34).

Kudos to these Canadian municipalities for calling for moratoriums:  CoaticookSutton, Pike River, and Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Quebec and also to elected officials in Niagara Falls and Ontario for raising valid health and safety concerns.


5G: Ten reasons to be concerned about 5G – and it has nothing to do with C-19

5G: Ten reasons to be concerned about 5G – and it has nothing to do with C-19,

by Annelie Fitzgerald and Tom Imber –

24th June 2020 / United Kingdom

Ten reasons to be concerned about 5G – and it has nothing to do with C-19

By Annelie Fitzgerald and Tom Imber: 5G has nothing to do with the coronavirus Covid-19 but as you’ll see there is a strong case for supporting legal action against it.

5G and existing wireless technologies use artificial radio-frequency radiation (RFR) that has adverse effects on health.

5G has not been safety tested.

5G is being rolled out under obsolete RFR exposure guidelines.

5G will introduce more RFR into our environment, with the risk of adverse impacts on flora and fauna.

5G will increase energy consumption.

5G will usher in a regime of total surveillance.

5G will create an insatiable need for rare earth elements and more toxic e-waste.

5G from space is a tragedy of the cosmic commons.

5G is being imposed on us with no public debate or informed consent.

We don’t need 5G.

5G and existing wireless technologies use artificial radio-frequency radiation (RFR) that has adverse effects on health.

A copious body of scientific research has found that effects from RFR (100kHz-300GHz) at currently permitted exposure levels include: increased cancer risk, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.1 In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as a ‘possible human carcinogen’ based on higher brain tumour rates (glioma and acoustic neuroma—a type of schwannoma) in longer-term users of mobile phones.2 In 2018, the US National Toxicology Program found ‘clear evidence’ of cancer (heart schwannoma) in animals exposed to near-field RFR, and an independent study published by the Ramazzini Institute the same year also found schwannomas from far-field exposure.3 Experts are now calling for RFR to be reclassified as a ‘known human carcinogen’ alongside tobacco and asbestos 4, for exposure levels to be reassessed5, and for a moratorium on 5G roll-out.6

One aspect of 5G is basically an upgrade of 4G networks to provide what has been dubbed ‘fake 5G’ (operating at frequencies below 6GHz)7; another, in the raft of RFR-dependent technological innovations grouped under the umbrella term ‘5G’, involves using millimetre waves (mmWaves). As noted on, ‘mmWave spectrum technically encompasses frequencies in the 30-300GHz range (extremely high frequency, EHF) but it more commonly refers to bands above 24GHz.’ 8 It is often claimed that mmWave frequencies will not be deployed in the UK: ‘Operators will not be launching 5G mobile networks with mmWave frequencies in 2019’. 9 But it is crucial here that the spokesman carefully refrains from explicitly stating that mmWave frequencies will never be used in the UK. In addition, there is plenty of puff about using mmWave frequencies on the already-sold 26GHz band is described there as ‘the key enabler of future 5G services’ and as ‘critical to 5G networks’.10 Ofcom is earmarking the 37-43.5 and 66-71GHz bands for sale as 5G bands too, regarding them as a ‘wide tuning range for harmonised equipment’.11 It is also openly recognised that mmWave frequency bands will ‘require many more antennas and antenna sites’ and that ‘new technologies like Massive MIMO and beamforming will be key to unlocking the potential of mmWave frequencies.’ 12 Any assurances that such frequencies will not be used in the UK are therefore nothing other than duplicitous.

5G has not been safety tested.

No long-term safety testing of 5G frequencies under real-life conditions, i.e. interacting with other forms of anthropogenic RFR and other biological and chemical agents, has been carried out.13 The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) recognises that the ‘lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.’14 Or, as US Senator Richard Blumenthal succinctly put it last year, ‘We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned’ (US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, 2019).15

A 2019 European Parliament analysis noted that it is currently ‘not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world’16, also stating: ‘Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas. The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions—from base station to handset and for the return’.17

Some of the sparse research that does exist on mmWave frequencies goes back a long way and includes a declassified CIA translation of Russian research into mmWave frequencies from 1977, summarised thus: ‘Morphological, functional and biochemical studies conducted in humans and animals manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the processes of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism. The degree of unfavourable effect of millimeter waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism’.18 Given that 5G will involve unavoidable and permanent exposure to such RFR for everyone—and that includes babies, children and vulnerable people—not only is the prospect hardly reassuring, it’s downright grim.

5G is being rolled out under obsolete RFR exposure guidelines.

Public Health England (PHE) and the other UK health agencies it advises adhere to exposure guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1998, updated this year. In determining its guidelines, ICNIRP only takes account of short-term effects that include heating, shock and nerve stimulation; it disregards abundantly documented non-thermal biological effects, i.e. effects where no measurable heating of tissue takes place, and effects that result from chronic and cumulative exposures. ICNIRP’s guidelines are therefore simply not protective of public health. (By the way, Eric van Rongen, the former chair of ICNIRP, has stated that 5G ‘is not set up as a public health experiment but of course you can consider it as such.’19) Numerous concerns about conflicts of interest within ICNIRP, and the inaccurate assessments of the science they lead to, have been expressed over the years 20, the most recent coming from Microwave News in April 2020, ‘The Lies Must Stop. Disband ICNIRP’, 21 and from two MEPs in a report released just last week: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G. 22 In 2012 the UK’s Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR)—three of whose members were also members of ICNIRP—published a report on RFR safety that has been criticised for being ‘inaccurate’, ‘biased’ and ‘misleading’.23 Although AGNIR has been disbanded, its inaccurate assessment of the science is used to this day to inform current policy in the UK.

5G will introduce more RFR into our environment, with the risk of adverse impacts on flora and fauna.

5G was identified as an ‘emerging risk’ for biodiversity in 2018 by a team led by Professor William Sutherland of Cambridge University 24, but the UK Government admits that it has undertaken no assessment of the potential effects of 5G on pollinators and wildlife. 25 Research already indicates that plants and wildlife are probably being adversely affected by existing RF pollution 26, while ICNIRP states that its exposure guidelines ‘provide protection for humans’ (from heating)—as if we are the sole species living on this planet! 27 The small size of insects means that they are likely to be particularly badly affected—owing to the ‘resonance effect’—if mmWave frequencies are deployed.28 As the ‘insect apocalypse’ already underway correlates with the widespread adoption of wireless technologies, introducing more RFR into the environment is beyond reckless. The focus should be on establishing whether, as many scientists suspect and as research suggests, anthropogenic RFR is a significant causal factor in ecological declines like insect collapse. 29

5G will increase energy consumption.

Wireless connectivity is inherently less energy efficient than using wires. 30 With 5G, according to the Shift Project, mobile operators will use 2.5 to 3 times more energy than now. 31 Even cheerleading website acknowledges that 5G networks will require a ‘vast amount of energy’. 32 Tackling the climate crisis necessitates reassessing our needs and living more soberly, yet 5G and the ‘internet of things’ take us in the opposite direction. Despite promises of increased energy-efficiency from industry, we know from experience with other technologies that efficiency gains tend to be cancelled out by the higher consumption that results from such gains—a mechanism known as the Jevons Paradox .33 And, as the Shift Project points out, ‘direct and indirect impacts (rebound effects) related to the growing use of digital are constantly underestimated’.34

5G will usher in a regime of total surveillance.

5G and the internet of things are a Trojan horse that will allow Big Tech to harvest even more of our data and further monetize our private lives. It will help usher in and consolidate a ‘profoundly undemocratic’ era of ‘digital omniscience’, as brilliantly and alarmingly analysed by Shoshana Zuboff in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019). The term ‘smart’, Zuboff points out—a term attached to many RF-using technologies—is used to revile traditional alternatives for remaining ‘dumb’, and is ‘a euphemism for rendition: intelligence that is designed to render some tiny corner of lived experience as behavioural data’, violating the ‘still-wild spaces we call “my reality”, “my home”, and “my body”’35. For surveillance capitalists ‘it is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal now is to automate us’36, stripping us of our autonomy and self-determination through applications and technologies designed to modify behaviour. We are sadly all-too-familiar with the destruction inflicted on nature by the extractive practices associated with industrial capitalism (mining for fossil fuels, etc), yet we still do not grasp that humanity itself is now the object of a new ‘extraction imperative’ that will wreak havoc on ‘what has been held most precious in human nature’37. All in the name of profit. (And of course there’s also the question of the vulnerability of ‘smart’ things and networks to cyber attacks. 38)

5G will create an insatiable need for rare earth elements and more toxic e-waste.

A smartphone contains at least 40 metals, some of them derived from conflict minerals such as coltan, cobalt and lithium.39 Mining for such resources takes place in what are sometimes atrocious working and environmental conditions in places such as China, Argentina and Central Africa, where human rights abuses are widespread and include the use of children as miners.40 At the end of its life, much of our electronic equipment is then shipped (back) to parts of the world with less stringent environmental regulations, where it is processed in unsafe conditions, with only 16%, according to some studies, being properly recycled.41 The built-in obsolescence of electronics will doubtless continue with 5G, while quantities of e-waste will surely escalate given the colossal number of connected gadgets that 5G promises to involve—41.6 billion by 2025 according to one estimate.42 Last year, half of the 50 million tonnes of e-waste generated globally consisted of TVs, computers, smartphones and tablets.43

5G from space is a tragedy of the cosmic commons.

Another aspect of the umbrella 5G project is internet access from space. With no global governing body providing oversight of space, Elon Musk’s Starlink project is currently launching 5G satellites—12,000 are planned—into orbit around Earth. Their light pollution has been ruining views of space, and many astronomers, including Dr Michele Bannister from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, have protested: ‘As a global community we need to have a conversation about how the night sky should look—this is an urgent public issue. The sky is just starting to become filled with these very optically bright satellites. When you look into the night sky, do you want to see nature or do you want to see artificial constructions? Because this is what it comes down to.’ 44 Musk, and the American federal agencies that gave him the green light, ignored warnings from astronomers prior to the launches, while other companies such as OneWeb have similar plans—for 48,000 satellites…45

Meteorologists, too, have complained that the RFR from Starlink’s satellites will interfere with their ability to forecast the weather, something more important than ever in an era of climate chaos. 46 Yet, it seems money can buy you anything, even the desecration of the heavens, our universal, cosmic commons. And is anyone thinking about what the long-term impact of bathing the planet in man-made RFR from space could be? As the authors of a recent Lancet piece point out, there is little research into the effects of anthropogenic RFR on Earth’s natural Schumann resonance, on the ionosphere, and on natural and man-made components of the atmosphere. 47 Surely it would be wise to look into this in depth before going any further.

5G is being imposed on us with no public debate or informed consent.

Governments and decision makers, like Big Tech and Big Wireless, all appear to believe that there is no need for any informed public debate about 5G roll-out, which is always presented using what Shoshana Zuboff has called ‘inevitability rhetoric’, as if technology exists in a separate realm beyond our control or understanding. 48 They also appear to be ‘technological fundamentalists’, believing that ‘the increasing use of evermore sophisticated high-energy, advanced technology is always a good thing and that any problems caused by the unintended consequences of such technology eventually can be remedied by more technology’49.

The UK government is rushing ahead with 5G partly because it has already sold certain frequencies to mobile operators for close to £1.4 billion 50, and the operators want a return on their investment. Local government has been deprived of the power to make its own decisions on 5G roll-out: ‘Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure’.51 So much for giving people more control over what happens in their lives.

In an investigation for the US weekly The Nation in 2018, Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie summed up how we have arrived at the hazardous situation we now find ourselves in: ‘the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organisations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects’.52 5G is the next phase of this non-consensual mass experiment, taking it ever further.53

We don’t need 5G.

With the world besieged by an ever-growing number of crises, directing resources at the unnecessary promised ‘benefits’ of 5G seems a crass indulgence. 54 What we really need is to learn some ethics and exhibit some humility.

Annelie Fitzgerald PhD is a member of the Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance and of Wiser Wireless Wales. Formerly a language teacher, Tom Imber PhD is a writer and translator.”

5G: Health and Environmental Impacts of 5G and Cell Phone Radiation: University Student Group

Environmental Health Trust  1 3/4 hours video w/Theodora

5G: CHD’s 5G and Wireless Harms Project: Monthly Summary, May 2020


How Big Wireless Lobbied Governments to Build 5G For Citizen Data Collection and Surveillance An overview of the Telecom industry’s lobbying efforts and actions that have corrupted Federal and State legislatures and governing bodies, the media and the science, while harming our health, harvesting our personal data, creating a surveillance state and essentially harming our basic civil and human rights. Our devices are “smart” but we have been dumb and this is the price. Wake Up America.


Tue, Jun 30, 2020 
Last week EHT submitted extensive testimony to the FCC documenting the scientific evidence that 5G will impact human health and the environment.
EHT put the science on the official record.
In Docket 19-226, the FCC proposed new allowable limits to the amount of electromagnetic radiation exposure to be absorbed by humans and the atmosphere from the use of frequencies as high as 3 THz and as low as 3 kHz.
The FCC asked what the public thinks. So we told them.
“We recommend a halt to the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication and a halt to the expansion of wireless networks until hazards for human health and the environment of these new frequencies and the densification of networks have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.
“5G paired with densification of 4G or other antennas will substantially increase environmental exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. We also recommend federally developed safety limits based on empirical scientific studies that have thoroughly investigated long-term effects to humans, animals, insects, trees, and the environment.
“Federal safety limits should be based on adequate data from animal and human research, not based on assumptions.”
We encourage you to download and share these extensive filings.
There is more.
Environmental Health Trust submitted extensive additional scientific documents found HERE
Over 1800 people submitted incredible testimony found HERE.
The FCC cannot claim it has not seen the science. If the FCC chooses to ignore that science, EHT will be ready to respond again.
We know you will also!
Your support enables us to hold public agencies like the FCC accountable. We cannot do the work we do to protect public health and the environment without your support. Please donate today as we urgently need to raise at least $50,000 to keep our lawsuit going.
EHT is taking the FCC to court for its refusal to update its 24-year-old guidelines on cell phones and wireless radiation. We will hold them accountable. We are confident that we will win.