Experts Gather to Warn of Health Dangers of 5G Radiation | "The safety exposure limits presently followed by our Government are set by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and are seen as insufficient by many scientists and other countries."

submitted by stickdog from (dailysceptic.org)

all 5 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It can't penetrate your skin

You literally have nothing to worry about

[–]stickdog[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So there is no such thing as radiation sickness?

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those are your own words, ma'am

[–]3andfro 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Relevant:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/military-5g-control-data-collection-monitoring-us-citizens/

If cellphone radiation is safe, why won’t insurers cover it? Tess Talks with 5G activist Ian Jarvis https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/if-cellphone-radiation-is-safe-why

I am now aware that thousands of studies suggest the potential for harm. In a previous post I referenced the ICNIRP guidelines, which cunningly use a safety standard for mobile phone use of just 6 minutes and relates to thermal effects only!

In today’s Tess Talks conversation, I discuss with Dr Beverly Rubik how we can protect ourselves and our families from the electromagnetic soup to which we have not consented (but sadly not yet objected to firmly enough either!).

Dr Rubik suggests that as much as 30% of people are currently electro-sensitive, which may manifest as depression, brain fog, headaches, and generally not attributed to electrosmog at all. https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/is-there-a-link-between-covid-and#details

And this provocative idea: https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/is-there-a-link-between-covid-and#details

[–]stickdog[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excerpt:

I am heartened to see that the negative effects of technology, such as smartphones and remote learning are now being discussed more publicly. Last Friday on GB News, Bev Turner talked about an ALDI store, to which entry can only be gained via smartphone. Various national newspapers are mentioning the psychological damage done to children through overuse of screens and social media. Addiction is a major problem.

However only a handful of people and organisations seem to be aware of the likely damage to physical and mental health from the radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by smartphones, wi-fi and phone masts. Those who do mention this are quickly labelled as conspiracy theorists, perhaps following the lead of the Counter-Disinformation Unit, which, I suspect, is the “subcommittee” referred to in the official Report for the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have explained this more fully in a previous TCW article, but the implication was that anyone who submitted evidence about possible health harms from RFR was tarred with the same brush as those who thought 5G caused Covid.

Considering how controversial it still is to oppose our Government’s view that RF radiation “should have no consequences for public health”, I am highly appreciative of the open-mindedness of bodies such as The Heritage Party and UsforThem in questioning its safety. Under the heading ‘Preserving the Environment’ in the Heritage Party Manifesto there is a call for a moratorium on 5G, while the UsforThem campaign ‘Safe Screens’ has a comprehensive list of harms, which include the health effects of radio-frequency radiation.

All the more welcome, therefore, is a free event hosted at the Royal School of Medicine by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) on Wednesday June 14th, with the topic: ‘Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Sources: Are Safety Limits Valid?’ For this event, a group of international experts has been assembled.

The safety exposure limits presently followed by our Government are set by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and are seen as insufficient by certain groups of scientists, and clearly also by many countries such as Italy, Switzerland, Eastern Europe, China and India, who use much stricter guidelines. The event on June 14th will be framed around the problem of divergent evaluations of the same scientific evidence on hazardous agents.

But what exactly will be discussed? Firstly, two scientific papers produced by ICBE-EMF in recent months will be summarised.

One paper lays out 14 false assumptions behind the ICNIRP guidelines. These include ICNIRP’s insistence that biological damage does not occur below a certain heating threshold in the body. Another, is that ICNIRP had only looked at exposures of six and 30 minutes, but did not consider low-level, long-term effects. In addition, the 2011 classification of RF radiation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “possibly carcinogenic”, as well as the results of large animal studies in 2018 were not taken into account despite the guidelines being updated in 2020.

...