The following preface is adapted from a 2018 paper written and compiled by
Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State
638 NE 41st Ave.
Portland, OR 97232, USA
Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RF-EMR) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
The document that follows was, in its original form, sent to many of the authorities of the European Union, in conjunction with other documents sent to the same people by a group of European scientists. It was in response to two documents that were, in turn, written by Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas responding to a large group of European and other international scientists expressing great awareness of the hazards of Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures from the densification of wireless 4G and 5G antennas in areas where people live, sleep and heal.
I was asked by the leaders of the group of scientists to write my own response to those two documents. Mr. Ryan made the statement that
“There is consistent evidence presented by national and international bodies — International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) — that exposure to electromagnetic fields does not represent a health risk, if it remains below the limits set by Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC1.”
In fact, that is not either the ICNIRP or SCENIHR position. Their positions — and similar positions have been taken by the U.S. FCC, FDA and the National Cancer Institute — is that the evidence is inconsistent or conflicting and therefore, in their view, no conclusions can be drawn. Some of these organization have also stated that there is no known mechanism by which effects can be produced.
What is shown in this paper is that there is a vast amount of substantial evidence in the independent scientific literature that does the following:
Conflicts with the conclusion about lack of demonstrated biological effects
Conflicts with the conclusion about the lack of mechanism of biological damages from RF-EMR) exposures
Proves that biological damages occur at levels of RF-EMR exposures far below the mainstream
officialRF-EMR exposure guidelines
Proves that these so-called
officialRF-EMR exposure guidelines (such as 10,000,000 μW/m², allowed for an unlimited amount of time) are not protective of public health or the environment because they are falsely based on just rate of RF-EMR exposures (μW/m²), despite established toxicology science showing many adverse biological effects from the total RF-EMR exposure over time (μW-seconds/m² — rate × time), which is the total dose of the toxin being measured: RF-EMR exposures.
Note: One simply cannot conclude that the presence of a 6-minute or 30-minute data collection period, specified in the so-called
official RF-EMR exposure guidelines, effectively considers total RF-EMR exposure over time because these are merely specified as
Listen to this audio clip from 1:19:13 to 1:23:50 — http://mystreetmychoice.com/audio/2018-0527-Paul-G-full.mp3
Eric Windheim, Certified Building Biologist and Certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist:
A lot of these people [speaking tonight] are my clients. They didn't even know I was going to be here tonight. They are damaged at levels [of RF-EMR exposures] that are 100,000 times lower than FCC limits . . . right now I have six active wireless radiation shielding jobs in progress, each costing several thousand dollars, with people that hurt. When they put the shielding up and stand behind it — it's like getting out of the sun, when you've got a sunburn. You can feel it instantly. That's what they report to me . . . I am in the field. I am seeing the people that are being injured. If these [so-called 'Small Cells'] are as safe as the FCC, AT&T and Mr. Hammett say, why are people spending thousands of dollars to shield themselves? And why do they feel better when they get that shielding up, like stepping out of the sun, when you got a sunburn? Once you get traumatized [by RF-EMR exposures], you may never go back to the way you were.
The truth of the matter is simply expressed in the selected units for various RF-EMR exposure guidelines. Note that in such guidelines, averages hide the actual intensity of the peaks of pulsed RF-EMR exposures by a factor of 10 to 1,000, or more):
|Rate of Exposure Units||Total Exposure Units|
Note: 1 Watt-Second = 1 Joule.
The scam of the FCC and others considering the average as more relevant than the sum of the peaks of RF-EMR exposures is not scientifically sound. The disparity in these numbers is clearly illustrated by the RF-EMR exposures from one cell tower in Sebastopol, CA that was carefully metered and analyzed in 2018.
There is a public health crisis — multiple deaths and illnesses at Petaluma Ave. and Walker Ave. homes within 500 feet of this cell tower from the RF-EMR exposures from this cell tower. This is even more telling when you consider peak RF-EMR measurement at ground Level at 300 feet from this 4G macro tower (111,700 μW/m²) in Sebastopol is similar to a peak RF-EMR measurement at ground level at 100 feet from a 4G So-Called “Small Cell” tower (170,300 μW/m²) in Santa Rosa. See post | photo 1 | photo 2 | video.
|Rate of RF-EMR Exposures
|Total RF-EMR Exposures
Compared to the FCC limit of 10,000,000 μW/m², we have accurately calculated the total RF-EMR exposures over time:
- In 30 minutes: 4.5 billion μW-Seconds/m², which is 457 times higher than the FCC limit
- In 1 day: 219 trillion μW-Seconds/m², which is 21,930 times higher than the FCC limit
- In 1 year: 80 quadrillion μW-Seconds/m², which is 8,004,468 times higher than the FCC limit
- In 10 years: 800 quadrillion μW-Seconds/m², which is 80,044,675 times higher than the FCC limit
The European Commission, according to the Ryan and Vinciūnas documents and the U.S. National Cancer Institute, according to their web site, are both depending on the SCENIHR 2015 document to make judgments about RF-EMR effects. Consequently, the reliability of SCENIHR 2015 is an essential element in determining the reliability of both of their assessments.
The document that is presented below, differs from the document that was emailed to EU authorities in three different ways:
The original document was sent as an email with multiple attachments. In this document attachments are simply provided as citations. The current document is a stand-alone document.
Some material is inserted to discuss positions taken by the U.S. FCC, FDA and National Cancer Institute, so as to be particularly relevant to the U.S. situation.
Substantial additional evidence is also provided.
The revised document contains six chapters followed by a citation list for the entire document:
Chapter 1: Eight Extremely Well-Documented Effects of Non-Thermal RF-EMR Exposures: Role of Pulsations, Other Factors that Influence RF-EMR Effects
Chapter 2: How Each Such RF-EMR Effect Is Directly Produced via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel Activation: Role of the Voltage Sensor in Producing the Extraordinary Sensitivity to RF-EMR Effects
Chapter 3. Strong Evidence for Cumulative and Irreversible RF-EMR Effects
Chapter 4. RF-EMRs Including Wi-Fi May Be Particularly Damaging to Young People
Chapter 5: The Importance of the SCENIHR 2015 Document and the Many Omissions, Flaws and Falsehoods in That Document
Chapter 6: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don’t Know
Read the paper here.