As this article is being written, a widespread conspiracy theory has gained media attention. The idea that the new roll out of 5G is the cause of the COVID-19 outbreak. Now, it goes with out saying that the theory is heavily flawed and unlike most news outlets, I do not think its worthwhile pointing out all the problems with it (there’s not enough hours in the day.) However, where the news outlets have done so, they have taken the opportunity to try and explain that EMF radiation is not a cause for concern and that 5G is perfectly safe. They will most of the time have a quote to back it up or use the ‘not enough evidence’ argument. Well, there has been an abundance of evidence pointing to the contrary, not just EMF radiation in the form of RF but also ELF. (Radio frequency and extremely low frequency) with thousands and thousands of scientific literatures published over the last couple of decades, has shown that chronic exposure to EMF radiation in both the ELF and RF groups can cause (to name a few) heart schwannomas, depressive tendencies, acoustic neuroma, insomnia and cerebral tumors.
In the aforementioned news articles that are trying to ‘debunk’ the 5G and Covid 19 link, many of them have made reference to the current safety standards published by ICNIRP, which are completely obsolete and focus heavily on the thermal level. The thermal level being level at which EMF exposure will heat up the body by 1 whole degree. I, along with many many others, have been saying that still operating in accordance with these guidelines is a danger to certain people and the BioInitiative Report 2007 stated that these guidelines were ‘insufficiently protective of public health’ and also pointed out the following:
‘effects are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international limits.’
An example would be that studies published in the BI2007 report showed triggering of stress on biological systems occur at environment levels of exposure at 0.5 to 1.0 µT for ELF. Putting that into context with the current UK government safe levels of 100 µT, this study is suggesting that the human biology is adversely affected at values 100-200 times lower than what the UK government would allow.
Other conclusions drawn up by the BioInitiative report are that ELF exposure affects the oncostatic effects of both melatonin and tamoxifen on human breast cancer cells at common levels of ELF exposure at 6 to 12 mG (0.6 to 1.2 µT). Epidemiological studies over the last two decades have reported increased risk of male and female breast cancer with exposures to residential and occupational levels of ELF. Animal studies have reported increased mammary tumor size and incidence in association with ELF exposure.
The ‘not enough evidence argument’ appears to be the go-to for the ill-informed or the bias. These people will be quick to point to the fact that there’s research published that takes up the other side of the argument, that EMF exposure does not cause any biological problems for humans. The truth is that the vast majority of these counter-argument research papers were/are in fact industry funded. The world is so tech orientated now and the tech industry itself is a trillion-dollar juggernaut. They will not come out openly and tell their consumers that their products and devices could be detrimental to their health. Even writing that, I can see how that can seem a bit conspiracy-theoryish (for want of a better word) but if you look at the ICEMS position paper on the cerebral tumor court case for instance, the following was published:
‘the ruling of the Supreme Court in Brescia underlined the discrepancies
between the low evidence of risk found by industry-funded studies and the higher evidence of
risk found by independent studies, such as those by the Swedish group directed by
epidemiologist L. Hardell, spotlighting a significant issue of modern science: conflicts of interest
and the problem of industry funding of research that is suspected of “bias,” manipulating
scientific results for marketing purposes.’
The real questions are: how do you get the best of both worlds? How do you implement appropriate guidelines for EMF radiation exposure levels and still operate this technology that is integral to the majority (myself included) of people’s lives?