MPs claim 5G ‘electromagnetic radiation’ is carcinogenic and kills insects

MPs claim 5G ‘electromagnetic radiation’ is carcinogenic and kills insects

We don’t have enough faces or palms

MPs claim 5G 'electromagnetic radiation' is carcinogenic and kills insects

A GROUP OF ill-informed MPs have argued that 5G ‘electromagnetic radiation’ is carcinogenic, worse for the environment than aviation and could wipe out the world’s insect population.

The claims were made in a debate moved by Gower MP Tonia Antoniazzi on Tuesday, where MPs discussed the risk of “health-related effects of electromagnetic fields” – a long-debunked urban myth – and 5G communications.

Antoniazzi cited Washington State University’s Dr Martin Phall who has described the 5G rollout as “absolutely insane“. Phall also claims that electromagnetic fields are responsible for autism and is a favourite of conspiracy theorist David Icke.

“The government are sweeping the health concerns under the carpet and there appears to be an absolute refusal to acknowledge that the health-related effects even exist,” claimed Antoniazzi.

“What shocked me was the number of people who have ES [electromagnetic sensitivity] but are too afraid to talk publicly about their illness, because they are really wary of being humiliated and ostracised.

“Electrosensitivity is the symptomatic sensitivity to electric or magnetic fields of any frequency, including radio frequency transmissions. The condition was first described in 1932. It is when a person’s physiology is affected by external electromagnetic fields, giving rise to a spectrum of symptoms, which are often neurological.

“It is therefore an illness caused by environmental agents – essentially, an environmental toxic pollutant.”

Symptoms, apparently, include headaches, fatigue, disturbed sleep, limb pain, stabbing pains, brain fog and impaired cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nose bleeds and palpitations.

“I will not accept the response that electrosensitivity does not exist; studies show that it does. It has many effects that are not at all subjective, including effects on proteins and DNA, cell death, altered brain activity and effects in animals, as my honourable friends have mentioned. Those effects can be measured, and they cannot be dismissed as being all in the mind.”

Geraint Davies, MP for neighbouring Swansea West, added that “4G has the same carbon footprint as all of aviation, and 5G will be a lot more”.

He claimed that 5G would also have a “detrimental impact on insect life”, which is decreasing in number at a rate of 2.5 per cent a year. He suggested that “the precautionary principle” ought to be applied to the roll-out of 5G, which presumably means that it shouldn’t proceed, “even if all sorts of commercial threats are being made to the government behind closed doors”.

Belief in electromagnetic radiation even extends to the shadow front bench, with David Drew MP, the shadow minister for environment, food and rural affairs joining in: “I have met people who are incredibly affected by electromagnetic sensitivity – to the extent that, when they moved into their house, they had to have the smart meter taken out, and even asked their neighbour to take out theirs.

“Once that happened, their health dramatically improved. People say that electromagnetic sensitivity is all psychosomatic, but I have seen the evidence of people’s sensitivity to electromagnetic waves. If we ignore it, there will certainly be health and biological consequences, and there may be many more problems.”

He demanded that the government respond “to the growing evidence”, adding: “There is growing concern, and it needs to be recognised and answered.”

And the shadow minister for public health, Sharon Hodgson, added her not considerable scientific knowledge to the debate, too: “I had heard… that 5G can go through us, where other things go around us, so it cannot go through trees but it can go through humans. There is a lot more we need to know about the technology.”

Thankfully, or perhaps remarkably, in view of the expertise thus far demonstrated in the debate, the parliamentary under-secretary for health and social care, Seema Kennedy MP, was able to offer some actual science.

“People ask whether radio wave exposure levels are increasing and whether there could be health consequences, and I want to put on record right at the beginning that, very importantly, radio waves are non-ionising radiation.

“That means that the packets of energy that form the radiation are too small to break chemical bonds: the radiation cannot damage cells and cause cancer in the same way as ionising radiation,” said Kennedy, adding that a lot of research has already been done in the UK and around the world into the issue.

She also noted: “Health concerns about electromagnetic fields have been raised in relation to each successive wave of new communications services, from 2G to 3G and 4G mobile phone networks, and with WiFi, smart meters and now 5G.”

There is, of course, an awful lot of nonsense written and amplified online about 4G, 5G and the risks posed by electromagnetic fields in general, such as the suggestion that it kills birdsinhibits plant growthturns people into ‘snowflakes’, and requires hazmat suits for installation.

It doesn’t reflect well on the calibre of MP today that some of that nonsense should be echoed in the chamber of the House of Commons.  µ

One comment on “MPs claim 5G ‘electromagnetic radiation’ is carcinogenic and kills insects

  1. Please do your research. The National Toxicology Program just found CLEAR EVIDENCE of carcinogenicity with wireless tech. Brain cancer and malignant heart tumors. The Ramazzini Institute confirms the findings. There are literally thousands of studies showing that exposure to nonionizng radiation has many NONthermal effects that are affecting the health and functioning of living organisms. The only ones NOT finding danger is the vested interests and their posse of supporters.

    Studies show that wireless tech is impairing fertility. It is neurotoxic and genotoxic. Just because it doesn’t act through the same mechanism as ionizing radiation does not meant it is safe. THAT is the BS that the industry is trying to pass off to unsuspecting people who refuse to do their own research into the topic.

    Unfortunately people do not seem to learn by experience. We have dealt with this on a more limited basis with tobacco, asbestos, lead, mercury, radium and countless drugs too. Anything else with this amount of evidence that it is dangerous would be removed from the shelf. But the telecoms are extremely rich and powerful and their agenda is in alignment with other very powerful entities, the public is being mislead about the safety of exposure.

    The industry put the product out there with no long term safety testing. They also lobbied and got exemption from responsibility for health damage in the Telecom Act of 1996. Huge industry insurers have said they will NOT cover health damage from wireless tech because they know the real science–and not the science that is being plumped into the public domain by the wireless industry. Remember the big industry insurers got screwed in the tobacco issue and now they look at independent science.

    Remember the famous sentiment of the tobacco industry: create doubt in the public and the damage can go on for decades while the lament of “more studies needed” keeps the truth at bay.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: