According to https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-advice/eme/5g-and-eme the conclusion is that no scientific studies have shown adverse health effect from 5G technology and that this is the position of the World Health Organisation. However there is appears to be a conflict of interest with some WHO scientists and a military/industry affiliated NGO (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/) In light of this Independent studies have been done that demonstrate clear health effects from RF-EMF on quote "DNA damage, oxidative stress, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, sperm morphology, and fetal, newborn, and early life development" (Source: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf) Aside from Health assessments from the World Health Organisation and ICNIRP, has Telstra funded any independent research from other NGO's and if so, who and how much? According to this scientific study - https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf - there are clear health effects of serious concern. With such information available that contradicts public reassurance, why is 5G being rolled out prior to a more conclusive consensus? According to the World Health Organisation, they are still in the process of doing studies on such effects, so would it not be negligence or complacency to halt 5G rollout until we have a scientific consensus? Regards Mick
Was this helpful?
None of those publications have anything to do with 5G technology (they are too old to even consider it). They deal with electromagnetic radiation in general.
If you were to take your view, then all mobile phone networks, TV and Radio broadcasting should cease.
5G transmitters in Australia currently work on a similar basis to LTE (4G) technology, just at a marginally higher frequency (they are sub6 systems, operating at 3500MHz, LTE operates in teh band of 700-2600MHz). There are no sub-mm systems in Australia yet and they are a long way off.
If you read the report, it is indeed referencing mobile phone networks aswel. Regardless, we are not talking about devices but rather the RF range and correlations to human health.
"Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at very low intensities (0.00034 – 0.07 µW/cm2)." As one example from the report.
Many health effects included damage to the blood brain barrier are shown at much lower levels than what 5G technology is running at. I guess to broaden the concern, we can and many have, applied this same issue to 4G technology aswel - hence the reason the studies are dated.
Nonetheless, My question was regarding scientific consensus and funding support for alternative studies as opposed to reliance solely on 'WHO' and the 5/6 core members who have an affiliated conflict of interest with ICNIRP.
I encourage you to research more thoroughly, and actually review information when it is presented to you by others - your health is just as vulnerable as mine so we should have a common interest on this position.
You'll get more radiation from your home microwave, your TV or your computer or a bluetooth headset if on for hours.
Have you got a source article to prove that? And I think you mean "you'll get radiation in addition to" - you're statement is incorrect but just because one device pumps out more than a second device does not mean you are only exposed to the one that produces more.
And once again, I asked what support or effort has been made to get alternative scientific information aside from reliance on 'WHO' which has a conflict of interest via it's core members. I guess there are too many people that just wan't to download their porn faster and not really concern themselves with their health or others.
I just hope that no liability could backlash as surely these potential health effects have been researched and proven beyond reasonable doubt, and with due diligence made - but I don't think this is the case.
Bluetooth and wifi also operate in the same frequency ranges as current mobile networks.
You do realise that it would be impossible to do any sort of study free of any sort of bias. The only people and organizations that are capable of those sorts of studies are all involved one way or another.
It's not impossible and the studies have been done and readily available. Bias is a variable that is controlled through proper testing and experimentation - the only bias of that is this variable is more often controlled in NGO and independent studies. Conflict of Interest is something more concrete - whereby the same person/s operate in two or more positions that have a direct relation with one another. That is, the fair result/outcome generally has a negative monetary effect on the other - either directly or indirectly, through self or affiliates. Judicial processors can clearly outline the difference between the impact of bias as opposed to 'conflict of interest' which is a specific terminology in legal matters. Bias on the other-hand, is not always determined to be conscious or intentional.
I'll tell you this much though, I have a bias for good health over good internet speed - and any reasonable and honest scientist would carry this same bias that superseeds any attachment to technology.
"Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry's lobbying organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) (51) in addition to WHO, see the International EMF Project, Progress Report June 2005–2006 (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-2006.pdf)."
Michael Repacholi is a Biophysicists from Australia - RF radiation has been proved to have many health effects..
"The working group reached the conclusion that RF radiation from devices that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz-300 GHz, is a Group 2B, i.e. a 'possible', human carcinogen (3,4). Later studies have corroborated these findings and have thus strengthened the evidence (5–8).
Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks (9–13). A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and cancer (14). An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in rats."
Notice the RF range - it covers 4G and 5G, and the health effects intensify with the increase of the range. Yes we are talking about mobile phones but basically anything that admits in that range - 5G is basically a much stronger and dense level.
RF was labelled as a Class 2B as a human carcinogen, but later the WHO did a study to try change this status quote;
"Considering the WHO statement of 'no adverse health effects' the aim might have been to undermine the IARC decision and give the telecom industry a 'clean bill' of health (8). It might, however, be argued that as a result of the IARC classification, it was necessary for WHO to also look at other effects"
The IARC are the some organisation that fronted the propaganda campaign for the tobacco industry and finding that tobacco had no negative health effects.
Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health effects department at the WHO (http://microwavenews.com/news/time-stop-who-charade). Since he left WHO in 2006 he has been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with GSM Association and Hydro Quebec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDZx7MphDjQ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MI_fa5YsgY) where he clearly speaks in favor of the telecommunications and the power industries, respectively.
Michael Repacholi is still the Chairman emeritus at ICNIRP (http://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/emeritus-members/index.html) and has propagated during almost 20 years worldwide the 'only thermal effect' paradigm of health risks from RF-EMF exposure, ignoring the abundant evidence for non-thermal effects or cancer risks.
So in conclusion - you have an Australian Biophysicist that is the head of ICNIRP and former head of WHO - that is affiliated with military and telecommunications businesses, with a history of propaganda news on health effects with RF. Telstra cites WHO and ICNIRP saying 5G is safe and no adverse health effects, while many independent peer-reviewed studies have proven that this is not the case.
This is a clear breach of conflict of interest, and Telstra has a duty of care to the Australian public to seek and support alternative sources of scientific information pertaining to the health effects of 5G of living organism in particular - humans. Instead we only see a single reference to these same two places - WHO and ICNIRP on their community info website - https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-advice/eme/5g-and-eme
This needs to be addressed because there is real conflict of interest here and real evidence of significant health impact from 5G but not limited to. Rather the range and intensity of atmospheric RF pollution. These effects accumulate over short to long time periods depending on exposure and strength of exposure, it is absurd that this is being rolled out without due diligence being made let alone attempted. There is no 'opt-out' for blanket exposure of this, nor has their been a thorough effort on Telstra's part to verify the Health and Safety of this technology before commencing the roll out that is not in every major city.
I'm sorry, but this is not good enough and ignoring this will not make it go away.
That would be the role of the appropriate government agencies to assess.
Need a hand or want to share your expertise?
Register for CrowdSupport and get involved