| Subject: | Wireless radiation |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:46:39 +0100 |
| From: | |
| To: | norman.lamb.mp@parliament.uk, Jeremy.wright.mp@parliament.uk, matt.hancock.mp@parliament.uk, commonsleader@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, WRAGG, William <william.wragg.mp@parliament.uk> |
Dear Norman Lamb,
I will begin by thanking you for your time, I appreciate that you must be very busy.
This email (which will be forwarded in line with my previous email on ‘Digital Dementia’) contains information that urgently needs to be included in the discussion on the UK telecommunications infrastructure.
Dr Ronald B. Herberman, ‘A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences… The public the world over has been misled by this reporting’
Our exquisitely intelligent and intricate human biologies do not bow to the whims of man-made progress, and certainly can’t always adapt in pace with it. There are limits to what human bodies can tolerate and this can play out as an unknown quantity that’s only revealed over time, as in the case of cigarette smoking, lead in petrol.. and also exposure to RF radiation.
Another unknown quantity is the threshold for degrees of harm. As this relates to 5G, 2G, 3G and 4G have all demonstrated harm. Researcher Professor Franz Adlkofer discovered that genetic damage was 10 times more likely to occur with 3G than it was with 2G. 5G radiation is now being unleashed, without safety testing, at frequencies at least ten times higher than 4G and with plans for it to be ubiquitously emitted at closer proximity than its predecessors. To remind you of the frequencies that represent threshold shifts: 2G operates between .825 – .960GHz; 3G operates between 1.800 – 1.990GHz; 4G operates between 2.620 – 2.690 GHz; 5G (the first wave) operates between 24.25 – 27.5GHz at the upper frequency level of a combination of two other levels of frequency, the middle being 3.4 – 3.8GHz and the lower range .7 GHz. The FCC has already opened up the 64GHz to 71GHz frequency bands for 5G.
Margot James’ response, on behalf of the British Government, to a question asked by William Wragg MP regarding 5G health effects, was: ‘A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and we anticipate no negative effects on public health.’
The following excerpts are from an EU study on ELF/EMF/RF effects (directed by Dr Franz Adlkofer), which ran between 2000 and 2004 at a cost of 3 million euros:
‘Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods’
1. The identification of the processes which lead to this DNA breakage will help to determine the extent of biological effects induced by RF-EMF exposure. Importantly, cellular effects observed in this study started already at an SAR of 0.3 W/kg which is far below 2 W/kg, the highest level allowed by the European safety limits. This suggests that the currently allowed radiation emission levels for the mobile phones, are clearly not sufficient to protect from biological effects.
2. As with Elf-EMF, RF-EMF exposure of human fibroblasts induced also an increase in micronuclei and an even higher incidence of chromosome gaps, chromosome breaks, dicentrics and acentric fragments, which was 10-fold after ELF-EMF exposure as compared to control cells and 100-fold after RF-EMF exposure.
3. Human fibroblasts and granulosa cells of rats (Participant 3) 125 RF-EMF generated DNA strand breaks in human fibroblasts and in granulosa cells of rats. 125 RF-EMF generated chromosomal aberrations in human fibroblasts.
4. RF-EMF induced micronuclei in human fibroblasts. (Micronuclei (MN) are extra-nuclear bodies that contain damaged chromosome fragments and/or whole chromosomes that were not incorporated into the nucleus after cell division. MN can be induced by defects in the cell repair machinery and accumulation of DNA damages and chromosomal aberrations. A variety of genotoxic agents may induce MN formation leading to cell death, genomic instability, or cancer development.)
5. Mouse embryonic stem cells (Participant 4) 129 RF-EMF affected double-strand DNA break induction in ES cell derived neural progenitors immediately after exposure.
6. With respect to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), data showed that RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts, granulosa cells and HL60 cells. Cells responded to RF-EMF exposure between SAR level 0.3 and 2 W/kg with a significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei frequency. Chromosomal aberrations in fibroblasts were observed after RF-EMF exposure. RFEMF at a SAR of 1.5 W/kg downregulated the expression of neuronal genes in neuronal precursor cells and upregulated the expression of early genes in p53-deficient embryonic stem cells, but not in wildtype cells. Proteomic analyses on human endothelial cell lines showed that exposure to RF-EMF changed the expression and phosphorylation of numerous, largely unidentified proteins. Among these proteins is the heat shock protein hsp27, a marker for cellular stress responses. … For both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF, the results of the whole genome cDNA micro-array and proteomic analyses indicated that EMF may activate several groups of genes that play a role in cell division, cell proliferation and cell differentiation
7. The RF-EMF-induced enhancement of hsp27 phosphorylation as well as the concomitantly RFEMF-induced down-regulation of proteins of Fas/TNFα suggest that the anti-apoptotic pathway in RF-EMF exposed cell systems may be modified.
8. RF-EMF affected the differentiation of neural stem cells (NSC)
9. Loss of p53 function rendered pluripotent ES cells sensitive to RF-EMF after prolongedexposure.
10. RF-EMF (GSM-CW and GSM-Basic) interfered with the expression of FGF receptors in NB69human neuroblastoma cells. 148 RF-EMF affected the expression of FGF receptors in neural stem cells (NSC).
11. RF-EMF exposure reproducibly up- and down-regulated protein expression in HL-60 cells (41 proteins showed to be up-, 1 protein to be down-regulated and 14 proteins appeared to be denovo expressed).
12. RF-EMF may affect the expression of FGF receptors in NB69 human neuroblastoma cells and in neural stem, potentially influencing cellular differentiation. 131RF-EMF affected the differentiation of neural stem cells (NSC), but not of neuroblastoma cells
13. RF-EMF reduced the expression of the receptor FGFR1 of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) in the human neuroblastoma NB69 cell line and in neural stem cells from rat embryonic nucleusstriatum. The changes in FGFR1 induced by RF-EMF is dependent mainly on the carrier frequency.
14. RF-EMF modulates the gene and protein expression in HL-60 cells.
15. RF-EMF generated genotoxic effects in HL-60 cells within a narrow energy window
16. There is some indication that gene expression is affected in immune cells after exposure to RF-EMF.
17. RF-EMF generated DNA strand breaks in human fibroblasts and in granulosa cells of rats. 125 RF-EMF generated chromosomal aberrations in human fibroblasts. 128 RF-EMF induced micronuclei in human fibroblasts.
18. Two other laboratories have recorded that RF-field/MW produced significant DNA strand breaks. Verschaeve et al. (1994), who used a GSM cell phone signal to expose human and rat peripheral blood lymphocytes, found significantly increased strand breaks at high, but non-thermal exposure levels. Phillips et al. (1998) exposed Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells with cell phone radiation in the SAR range
19. RF-EMF exposure for different SAR and different exposure times (1800 MHz, continuous wave) led tothe induction of single and double DNA strand breaks. (NB. 1800 MHZ led to the induction of single and double DNA strand breaks. The first wave of 5G will radiate radio frequencies at 24,250,000,000Hz – 27,500,000,000Hz (24,250,000MHz – 27,500,000MHz) without a single safety test.)
20. The gene expression analyses presented here make it very likely that EMFs – RF-EMF and ELF-EMF can change gene expression in human cells.
21. Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man. (n.b. this is a hugely important statement. A large aspect of the denial of harmful effects is the claim that no pathophysiological mechanisms have been identified.)
Something very important to note is this. The study revealed that RF radiation damage depends on the type of cell. Some human cells, especially fibroblasts, were sensitive to these fields while other cells, including white blood cells, were less sensitive and did not respond at the low field strengths used in the Reflex study. This finding clearly creates a perfect opportunity for the telecommunications industry to deliberately direct research into the unaffected cell-types in order to create a result of ‘no harm’.
So that I’m not only quoting from one study:
Exposure to RF radiation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
‘Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation ‘… ‘We suggest minimizing the intensity and time of RFR exposures, and taking a precautionary approach towards wireless technologies in everyday human life.’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468009000352
‘…it must be concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health, and that new public safety limits, as well as limits on further deployment of untested technologies, are warranted.’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468009000091
‘Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases… We conclude that current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long-term exposure and needs to be revised.’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468009000066
‘Electromagnetic fields stress living cells’ ‘… While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands. It is clear that in order to protect living cells, EMF safety limits must be changed from the current thermal standard, based on energy, to one based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes.’
Wi-Fi:
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355)
‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health’ – ‘Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload.’
Cancer epidemiology update on IARC 2011 RF radiation ‘Carcinogenic to Humans’ classification:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475
‘Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields’ ‘•Increased risk of brain, vestibular nerve and salivary gland tumors are associated with mobile phone use. •Nine studies (2011–2017) report increased risk of brain cancer from mobile phone use. •Four case-control studies (3 in 2013, 1 in 2014) report increased risk of vestibular nerve tumors. •Concern for other cancers: breast (male & female), testis, leukemia, and thyroid. •Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).’
On the subject of 5G phased array frequencies:
Excerpt from the article ‘5G – From blankets to bullets’ by Arthur Firstenberg:
‘At present, smartphones emit a maximum of about two watts, and usually operate at a power of less than a watt. That will still be true of 5G phones, however inside a 5G phone there may be 8 tiny arrays of 16 tiny antennas each,[3] all working together to track the nearest cell tower and aim a narrowly focused beam at it. The FCC has recently adopted rules[4] allowing the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts. Now if a handheld smartphone sent a 20-watt beam through your body, it would far exceed the exposure limit set by the FCC. What the FCC is counting on is that there is going to be a metal shield between the display side of a 5G phone and the side with all the circuitry and antennas. That shield will be there to protect the circuitry from electronic interference that would otherwise be caused by the display and make the phone useless. But it will also function to keep most of the radiation from traveling directly into your head or body, [5] and therefore the FCC is allowing 5G phones to come to market that will have an effective radiated power that is ten times as high as for 4G phones. What this will do to the user’s hands, the FCC does not say. And who is going to make sure that when you stick a phone in your pocket, the correct side is facing your body? And who is going to protect all the bystanders from radiation that is coming in their direction that is ten times as strong as it used to be?’With the greatest respect to you personally, may I suggest that in your meeting on the future of the UK telecommunications infrastructure, you begin by establishing whether human safety takes priority over industry and government profits or industry and government profits take priority over human safety. Presently, it appears that human safety is coming in second. At the core, it really is that black and white.
On the heels of this email will be an email on ‘The Precautionary Principle’: ‘The principle states that in the case of serious or irreversible threats to the health of humans or the ecosystem, acknowledged scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason to postpone preventive measures.’ With RF radiation effects, it’s not even a case of ‘acknowledged scientific uncertainly’ but rather, of ‘unacknowledged scientific certainty’.
Parents and Concerned Citizens Against 5G 